20201215 Late CorrespondenceCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
DATE: DECEMBER 15, 2020
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No.
Public
Comments
G
Description of Material
Emails from Sunshine
Revised LEAP Resolution
Additional Attachments (Attachments E, F, G, and H)
2 Letter from WCB and CCC; City's response letter to WCB and CCC;
Emails from: Kimberly Macy Richardson; Andy Matarazzo; Grace Yung;
Dennis and Cathy Gardner; Lisa Gladstone; Joan Taylor; Debbie
Denise; Jenay Rouimi; Herb Stark; Laura Feldman; Marty Foster; Bill
Foster; Geoff Wainwright; Gene and Lynne Dewey; Sunil and Supriya
Mathur Gianchandani MD; Ellen and John Dahlin; Bill Costley; Christina
Atencio and Paul Fulton; Lori Barr; Debbie and Mark Roberts; Bonnie
Luthi; Amanda Wong; William Bryan; Diane & George Ringer; Edmundo
Hummel; Lori Trull; Judy Hildebrand; Roger Mills and Carol Jeung-Mills;
Adrienne Mohan; Bill Schurmer; Julie Schneider; G. Traughber and
Lynndee Ronlov; Romas Jarasunas; Pippa and Jeremy Davies; Sandra
Valeri; Russell and Stella LaRose; Patricia Stenehjem; Anne and Joseph
Cruz; Philip Robinson; Msgr. David A. Sork; Richard and Brigitte Haber
3 Email Jim Knight
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, December 14, 2020**.
Re~mitted,
Emily Colborn
L:\LA TE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\20201215 additions revisions to agenda.docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Wednesday, December 9, 2020 6:11 PM
CC; CityCierk
jessboop@cox.net; corinne.pbca@gmail.com; bzzask@gmail.com
Panic attck? Dec 15 CC meeting, Item not on the Agenda -Public info clarification
Dear Mr. Mayor, Council and Staff,
Check out the following usual Weekly Crime Reports and the special notice from the same RPV
listserv source.
The Lomita Sheriff Station's Surveillance Apprehension Team (SAT) has been actively investigating residential
burglaries throughout the station's reporting districts, particularly at homes that back up to trails, golf courses,
or open areas.
Is someone trying to imply that such residences are less "safe"? Not only are there
very few residential burglaries, there is nothing in the Weekly Crime Reports which indicates how the burglar
approached the residence.
Is this another effort to reduce public access to the Nature Reserves or is this something that Staff needs to address
(with citizen input) in the draft application to amend the Trails Network Plan? The Sheriffs Spokespersons used to
say ... Trails are not a problem. Burglars are lazy. They park in your driveway.
My avocation is to notice anomalies and ask Council questions when Staff does not respond .... S
From: listserv@civicplus.com
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Sent: 12/9/2020 5:01 :27 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: Lomita Sheriffs Station Weekly Crime Reports
1
·Lomita Sheriff's Station Weekly Crime Report
The Lomita Sheriffs Station produces a weekly crime report summary that includes
information about reported crimes and arrests for the areas served by the Lomita Sheriffs
Station , including the City of Rancho Palos Verdes .
View the latest report at the following link : Week of November 22 (PDF) .
View other recent reports at the following links :
• Week of November 15, 2020 (PDF)
• Week of November 8, 2020 (PDF)
• Week of November 1, 2020 (PDF)
• Week of October 25, 2020 (PDF)
• Week of October 18 , 2020 (PDF)
• Week of October 11 , 2020 (PDF)
• Week of October 4. 2020 (PDF)
• Week of September 27 , 2020 (PDF)
An archive of weekly crime reports is available on the City website under Crime Reports -
Weekly Summaries .
f Share on Face book ~Share on Twitter
Copyright 2019 Rancho Palos Verdes. All Rights Reserved.
30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
If you no long er wish to receive emai ls from us, you may Unsubscribe .
2
Share via Email
Powered by
~~IVIC SEND
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 4:43PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Urgent before Dec.15, 2020 CC Non-Agenda Item
Rec n Parks Sections Key Map-166Jpg
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 4:40 PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Urgent before Dec.15, 2020 CC Non-Agenda Item
Here is the old Public Works version just in case Ramzi and Cheri can't find a newer version . Gabi
wrote LOL when she saw this one but... S
In a message dated 12/14/2020 2:18:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, TeriT@rpvca.gov writes:
We can add all three slides to the late corr packet.
Teri
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com >
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:07 PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov >
Subject: Re: Urgent before Dec.15, 2020 CC Non-Agenda Item
I need them to all be on one slide so that Council can see the difference .... S Here's 1
In a message dated 12/14/2020 1:59:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, TeriT@rpvca.gov writes:
Hi Sunshine-
You can sent the maps to cityclerk@rpvca.gov .. Then we can add them to late correspondence.
Thank you P0l?i! c.
1 Co n1 n1ent .S
Teri
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com >
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 11:35 AM
To: Karina Banales <kbanales@rpvca .gov>; CityCierk <CityC ierk@rpvca .gov>; Lukasz Buchwald
<lbuchwa ld@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Urgent before Dec.15, 2020 CC Non -Agenda Item
Hello Karina, Lukasz and Teri,
In pursuit of "holistic solutions" and as usual, I don't know who might be able to do
this. Somebody, please tell me who can, will, reduce three pages onto one Power
Point slide for tomorrow night's meeting. It is my old computer so I can't send you
three maps in one attachment. RPV has a problem with putting titles and dates on
individual pages of documents so it may take me an hour or so to label them, scan
them and send them.
In their Staff Report about PV Preserve parking issues, Rec.& Parks has created a
new map which subdivides the City into "segments". A few years ago, I came across
a map of how Public Works has divided the City into "project areas". The 1990 and
1993 Conceptual Trails Plan has the City divided into "sections" which only the
Planning Dept. has used.
Since it is the Public Works Dept. which is responsible for maintaining and enhancing
the infrastructure all over the City (including roadsides and off-road trails), and most of
the trails even if you don't count the roadsides are now on City controlled property, I
have been pursuing the notion that everyone use the Public Works Department's
"project areas" key map.
This suggestion has obviously not gotten any traction so I want to present it to
Council. It would be really great if someone on Staff would speak up and say we will
do this before the Trail Network Plan Update and the Preserve Parking Plan/Preserve
overview get any closer to being "cast in concrete".
Please let me know who to send the maps to .... S 310 -377-8761
2
r
,Lo 2--D ~ec..-. v r 0\'(' K ~
ATTACHMENT A: Inventory/Overview of
1 0 Preserve/Open Space ''Segments/( of c\~ of RP\)
.,\
N
1
c::===:=::Jt.toes
Overview of City Open Space Areas and Trails : Ten Segments
1 . Grandview/Malaga Canyon
2. Hesse
3. Point Vicente Park/Civic Center & PVIC (included in main report)
4. Three Sisters/Filiorum
5. Del Cerro/Portuguese Bend (Upper) (included in main report)
6. Portuguese Bend (Lower)
7. Ladera Linda Forrestal (included in main report)
8. Abalone Cove/Archery Range
9 . Trump/Switchback (San Ramon)
10. Miraleste/Eastvie~ ·
G-1
Nathan Zweizig
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, December 14, 2020 4:34 PM
SUNSHINE
Subject: RE: Urgent before Dec.15, 2020 CC Non-Agenda Item
HI
Unfortunately I can't get them on one page .. I will include your attachments in the late correspondence packet for the
Council's review.
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 4:31PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Urgent before Dec.15, 2020 CC Non-Agenda Item
Hi Teri,
Ramzi or somebody might be able to find a more up to date version of the Public Works Department's
subdivisions of the City. Attached is the Planning Department's version. Next, I'll send the R&P's
new version and the old PW version. I want the public and the City Council to see all three on the
same page during my three minutes on Non-Agenda Items so that I can make the point that "holistic
solutions" only happen when Staff is all on the same page. Late Correspondence is useless. . .. S
In a message dated 12/14/2020 2:18:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, TeriT@rpvca.gov writes:
We can add all three slides to the late corr packet.
Teri
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:07 PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Urgent before Dec.15, 2020 CC Non-Agenda Item
I need them to all be on one slide so that Council can see the difference .... S Here's 1
In a message dated 12/14/2020 1:59:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, TeriT@rpvca.gov writes:
1
Hi Sunshine-
You can sent the maps to cityclerk@rpvca .gov .. Then we can add them to late correspondence.
Thank you
Teri
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com >
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 11:35 AM
To: Karina Banales <kbanales@rpvca.gov >; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov >; Lukasz Buchwald
<lbuchwald@rpvca .gov>
Subject: Urgent before Dec.15, 2020 CC Non-Agenda Item
Hello Karina, Lukasz and Teri,
In pursuit of "holistic solutions" and as usual, I don't know who might be able to do
this. Somebody, please tell me who can, will, reduce three pages onto one Power
Point slide for tomorrow night's meeting. It is my old computer so I can't send you
three maps in one attachment. RPV has a problem with putting titles and dates on
individual pages of documents so it may take me an hour or so to label them, scan
them and send them.
In their Staff Report about PV Preserve parking issues, Rec.& Parks has created a
new map which subdivides the City into "segments". A few years ago, I came across
a map of how Public Works has divided the City into "project areas". The 1990 and
1993 Conceptual Trails Plan has the City divided into "sections" which only the
Planning Dept. has used.
Since it is the Public Works Dept. which is responsible for maintaining and enhancing
the infrastructure all over the City (including roadsides and off-road trails), and most of
the trails even if you don't count the roadsides are now on City controlled property, I
have been pursuing the notion that everyone use the Public Works Department's
"project areas" key map.
This suggestion has obviously not gotten any traction so I want to present it to
Council. It would be really great if someone on Staff would speak up and say we will
2
do this before the Trail Network Plan Update and the Preserve Parking Plan/Preserve
overview get any closer to being "cast in concrete".
Please let me know who to send the maps to .... S 310-377-8761
3
C00CX'~\ V..f-. L-
\ r.tA { LS . P L-fd.J
'' Stsc..TtoN7r1 of
Ct\Y OF ~\OV
l£ ND
-PEDESTRIAN ONLY
111111 PEDESTRIAN/EQUESTRIAN
•-• OFF-ROAD BICYCLE ONLY
..... MUL TI·PURPOSE TRAIL !Pedestrian.
Equestrian, and Off-road Bicycle!
fJj TRAIL CATEGORY
'-TRAIL NUMBER UN CONCEPTUAL TRAILS PLANI
Pt.
.-.
Long Pl.
Roproduood with pormi .. ion grontod by THOMAS BROS. MAPS•.
Thil mop i• oopyrightod by THOMAS BROS. MAPS•. It is unlewful
to copy or reproduce all or eny pan thereof, whether for personal
uae or for reaele, without permiwaion.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Megan Barnes
Thursday, December 10, 2020 11:44 AM
CityCierk
Jaehee Yoon
Fwd: RPV: LEAP Application Timeline & Checklist
Rev_Attachment A-LEAP Resolution.docx
Please see the attached updated resolution for Item G.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 11:40:30 AM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>; Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov>; Karina Banales <kbanales@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: RPV: LEAP Application Timeline & Checklist
Good morning,
We just received an email from the grant consultant providing comments on the LEAP application resolution.
I've made the necessary changes in the attached revised resolution for your review.
Please let me know if there is anything else I'd need to do to have this version as part of the CC meeting on Tuesday.
Thank you.
Jaehee
From: Gwendy Silver <gsilver@blaisassoc.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 11:32 AM
To: Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov>; Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Nancy Littman <nlittman@blaisassoc.com>; Andrea Owen <aowen@blaisassoc.com>
Subject: Re: RPV: LEAP Application Timeline & Checklist
Hello Jaehee,
I have reviewed your LEAP Resolution, and just have one comment. Please add a section at the end where the
City Clerk states the Ayes, Nos, Abstains outcome of the Council vote for Resolution approval. Otherwise, the
Resolution satisfies HCD LEAP requirements.
Sincerely,
Gwendy Silver
Associate
Direct: 818 -324-2633
Corporate: 949-589-6338
www.blaisassoc.com
1 G.
B&A Proudly Serves Clients Nationwide
From: Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 1:39 PM
To: Gwendy Silver <gsilver@blaisassoc.com >; Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca .gov>
Cc: Nancy Littman <nlittman@blaisassoc.com >; Andrea Owen <aowen@blaisassoc.com >
Subject: RE: RPV: LEAP Application Timeline & Checklist
Hi Gwendy,
Thank you for the checklist.
Please find attached LEAP grant resolution that has been drafted for the City Council's consideration in mid Dec.
Please let me know if this would suffice as we will be finalizing the report this week.
Thank you.
Jaehee
From: Gwendy Silver <gsilver@blaisassoc .com >
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 12:01 PM
To: Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca .gov>; Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov >
Cc: Nancy Littman <nlittman@blaisassoc .com >; Andrea Owen <aowen@blaisassoc.com >
Subject: Re: RPV: LEAP Application Timeline & Checklist
Hello Again:
Please use this attached, correct Timeline & Checklist for the LEAP grant-writing project.
An incorrect file was attached to the previous email. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Sincerely,
Gwendy Silver
Associate
Direct : 818-324-2633
Corporate: 949-589 -6338
www.blaisassoc.com
From: Gwendy Silver
B&A Proudly Serves Clients Nationwide
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 10:55 AM
To: Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov>; Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov >
Cc: Nancy Littman <nlittman@blaisassoc .com >; Andrea Owen <aowen@blaisassoc.com >
Subject: RPV: LEAP Application Timeline & Checklist
Good Morning Jaehee and Megan:
2
I hope you both enjoyed a wonderful holiday weekend!
Attached please find the Timeline & Checklist for RPV's LEAP grant writing project due to HCD by January 31,
2021. Please note the following as you review the document:
• Priority Item -the draft Resolution has been sent to Jaehee, and will be on City Council agenda next
month.
• per the timeline, we look forward to working further on this project after the quote approval from City
Council on December 15th.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions on this project's planning document.
Sincere ly,
Gwendy Silver
Associate
Direct : 818-324-2633
Corporate: 949 -589-6338
www.blaisassoc.com
B&A Proudly Serves Clients Nationwide
3
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO FILE APPLICATION FOR, AND RECEIPT OF,
LOCAL EARLY ACTION PLANNING (LEAP) GRANT PROGRAM
FUNDS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code 50515 et. Seq, the Department of
Housing and Community Development ("Department") is authorized to issue a Notice of
Funding Availability (NOFA) as part of the Local Government Planning Support Grants
Program (hereinafter referred to by the Department as the Local Early Action Planning
Grants program or (LEAP)); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes desires to submit
a LEAP grant application package ("Application"), on the forms provided by the
Department, for approval of grant funding for projects that assist in the preparation and
adoption of planning documents and process improvements that accelerate housing
production and facilitate compliance to implement the sixth cycle of the Regional
Housing Need Assessment (RHNA); and
WHEREAS, the Department has issued a NOFA and Application on January 27,
2020 in the amount of $119,040,000 for assistance to all California Jurisdictions;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("Applicant")
resolves as follows:
Section 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to apply for and
submit to the Department the Application package;
Section 2. In connection with the LEAP grant, if the Application is approved by the
Department, the City Manager of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is authorized
to submit the Application, enter into, execute, and deliver on behalf of the
Applicant, a State of California Agreement (Standard Agreement) for the amount
of $150,000, and any and all other d9cuments required or deemed necessary
or appropriate to evidence and secure the LEAP grant, the Applicant's
obligations related thereto, and all amendments thereto; and
Section 3. The Applicant shall be subject to the terms and conditions as specified
in the NOFA, and the Standard Agreement provided by the Department after
approval. The Application and any and all accompanying documents are
incorporated in full as part of the Standard Agreement. Any and all activities
funded, information provided, and timelines represented in the Application will be
enforceable through the fully executed Standard Agreement. Pursuant to the
NOFA and in conjunction with the terms of the Standard Agreement, the Applicant
hereby agrees to use the funds for eligible uses and allowable expenditures in
the manner presented and specifically identified in the approved Application.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 151h day of December 2020.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
RECUSALS:
ABSENT:
Eric Alegria, Mayor
Attest:
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that
the above Resolution No. 2020-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on December 15, 2020
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Lukasz Buchwald
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 11 :11 AM
CityCierk
Karina Banales; Ara Mihranian
RE: Late Correspondence for Item I (Consent Agenda)
Attachments: E -Riverside County MSFT Enterprise Agreement fully signed.pdf; F -Riverside 2024
extension with DELL.pdf; H -City of Rancho Palos Verdes EA Renewal Final DTF
121 02020.pdf; G -City of Rancho Palos Verdes PRE SIG -signed.pdf
Importance: High
Team,
I got the electronically signed documents from Microsoft. If you have not attached the documents I sent out yesterday
yet, please attached those instead and disregard the email I sent yesterday.
E-Riverside County EA Agreement
F -Riverside 2024 extension with DELL
G-RPV 2020 EA Renewal -Electronically Signed by Microsoft
H -Discount Transparency Disclosure Form
Sincerely,
Lukasz Buchwald
From: Lukasz Buchwald
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 5:24PM
To: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Karina Banales <kbanales@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Late Correspondence for Item I (Consent Agenda)
Team,
Please attach those documents as late correspondence to Item I-Consideration and possible action to approve an
agreement with Dell Technologies for a three-year Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (EA).
E -Riverside County EA Agreement
F-Riverside 2024 extension with DELL
G-EA Enrollment Form
H -EA Amendment to Contract Documents
I-EA Signature Form
J-Enterprise Enrollment Product Selection Form
K-Discount Transparency Disclosure Form
Lukasz Buchwald
Information Technology Manager
~City of Rancho Palos Verdes
1 I .
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
lbuchwa ld@ rpvca.gov www. rpvca .gov
Phone -(310} 544-5311
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working
on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in
advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are
limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of
department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
2
Licensing Solution Provider Agreement Number PSA-0001524
This Licensing Solution Provider Agreement is made and entered into this 22nd day of October 2019, by and
between Dell Marketing L.P., a Texas corporation ("CONTRACTOR"), and the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a
political subdivision of the State of California, ("COUNTY").
WHEREAS, COUNTY and Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft'') have entered into that certain Microsoft
Enterprise Agreement (Master Agreement No. 8084445; the ''Master Agreement"), effective August 23, 2019,
under which COUNTY has the ability to enter into one or more enrollments lo order certain Microsoft product
licenses;
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR desires to provide support to COUNTY and its Enrolled Affiliates (as
defined in the Master Agreement) for said licenses under this Agreement and hereby represents that it has the
skills, experience, and knowledge necessary to perform under this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY desires to accept CONTRACTOR's services under this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
l. This Agreement covers all enrollments for all products licensed under the Master Agreement. All terms
and conditions of the Master Agreement, attached as Exhibit E of this Agreement and incorporated by
reference, shall apply to the purchase of related products and services.
2. This Agreement is available for use by all government entities within the State of California (an "Enrolled
Affiliate") for the duration of the Term (defined below in section 4). Enrollment documents will contain
the terms and conditions specific to each entity.
3. CONTRACTOR agrees to extend the same pricing, terms, and conditions as stated in this agreement to
each and every govemmcnt entity in the State of California. Terms and conditions arc governed by this
Agreement, the Master Agreement, and the applicable enrollment documents for each entity. Entities shall
make purchases in their own name, make direct payment to CONTRACTOR, and be liable directly to
CONTRACTOR for all obligations.
3.1 COUNTY shall in no way be responsible to CONTRACTOR for Enrolled Affiliates' purchases
and obligations. COUNTY shall in no way be responsible to other entities for their purchases or
any acts or omissions of CONTRACTOR, including but not limited to product selection or
implementation, services or other related matters.
3.2 CONTRACTOR shall notify Enrolled Affiliate in writing of the terms and conditions stated in
Section II.
4. This Agreement shall be effective from November I, 2019 through October 31, 2021, unless terminated
earlier (the "Term").
5. Hold Harmless/lndemnification:
5.1 CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its Agencies,
Districts, Special Districts and Departments, their respective directors, officers, Board of
Supervisors, elected and appointed officials, employees, agents and representatives (individually
and collectively hereinafter referred to as Indemnitees) from any liability, action, claim or damage
Page 1 of 11
E-1
OCT 2 2 2019 ·7. ( Lf
Licensing Solution Provider Agreement Number PSA-0001524
whatsoever, based or asserted upon any services, or acts or omissions, of CONTRACTOR, its
officers, employees, subcontractors, agents or representatives arising out of or in any way relating
to this Agreement, including but not limited to property damage, bodily injury, or death or any
other element of any kind or nature. CONTRACTOR shall defend the Indcmnitccs at its sole
expense including all costs and fees (including, but not limited, to attorney fees, cost of
investigation, defense and settlements or awards) in any claim or action based upon such acts,
Ol111SS!Ol1S or SCJ'VlCCS.
5.2 With respect to any action or claim subject to indemnification herein by CONTRACTOR,
CONTRACTOR shall, at their sole cost, have the right to use counsel oftheir own choice and shall
have the right to adjust, settle, or compromise any such action or claim without the prior consent
of COUNTY; provided, however, that any such adjustment, settlement or compromise in no
manner whatsoever limits or circumscribes CONTRACTOR indemnification to Indemnitccs as set
forth herein.
5.3 CONTRACTOR'S obligation hereunder shall be satisfied when CONTRACTOR has provided to
COUNTY the appropriate fom1 of dismissal relieving COUNTY from any liability for the action
or claim involved.
6. Contractor Responsibilities: CONTRACTOR will offer the following services to each Enrolled Affiliate
at no additional charge. It is the responsibility of the Enrolled At11liate to determine which products and/or
services, if any, meet their needs and communicate that to the CONTRACTOR.
6.1 Provide reports showing year to date annual spend according to Enrolled Affiliate's specifications.
Frequency will be determined by each Emolled Affiliate (monthly, quarterly, etc.).
6.2 Provide a short synopsis of why an amendment is needed and the ramification of each amendment
to an enrollment at the time of such amendment.
6.3 Provide an updated price list on an annual basis or when requested by Enrolled Affiliate.
7. CONTRACTOR's Microsoft Enterprise Agreement license subscription price attached hereto as Exhibit
A and service rates attached hereto as Exhibit B.
8. CONTRACTOR's Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Participation Form attached hereto as Exhibit C and
incorporated herein by reference.
9. Usage Reporting: CONTRACTOR will provide to COUNTY the Licensed Support Provider (LSP)
Reporting of Active Enrollments to Master Microsoft Enterprise Agreement No. 8084445, Select Plus
Agreement No. 7756479, Microsoft Premier, Unified, and MCS Support services, showing a list of
enrollments by February 15th of each year. Forms shall be submitted electronically to
MasterMicrosoftAdmin@rivco.org. A copy of the form is attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated
herein by reference.
I 0. Administrative fees: CONTRACTOR will be charged .5% of the annual enrollment amount to leverage
the Riverside County Master Microsoft Agreement No. 8084445, Select Plus Agreement No. 7756479,
Microsoft Premier, Unified, and MCS Support services. This will be an annual fee, per enrollment
inclusive of Affiliates Shadow Enrollments. Example: A three-year aggregated agreement with a contract
Page 2 of 11
E-2
Licensing Solution Provider Agreement Number PSA-0001524
amount of $300K, divisible by three years will result in an LSP Participation Fcc of $500 annually
( 1 OOK* .5%). RCJT will invoice the Awarded LSP annually based on the enrollments verified from the
''Reporting of Active Enrollments" list submitted by December 15th of each year. Payment is due to
Riverside County Information Technology thirty (30) days from invoice date.
10.1 Riverside County Information Technology (RCIT) will invoice the CONTRACTOR annually
based on the enrollments verified. Payment is due to RCIT within thirty (30) days of invoice date.
The COUNTY will not accept credit as a form of payment.
I 0.2 Failure to meet the administrative fee requirements herein and submit fees on a timely basis may
constitute grounds for immediate termination of this Agreement.
II. Contract Management: The contacts for this Agreement for COUNTY shall be both RCIT and Purchasing
as listed below.
COUNTY Primary Contact:
Jim Smith
3450 14th Street
Riverside, CA 9250 l
CONTRACTOR contact:
Alisson Harrington
One Dell Way
Round Rock, TX 78682
COUNTY Secondary Contact:
Rick Hai
2980 Washington Street
Riverside, CA 92504
11.1 Should Contract Management contact information change, the CONTRACTOR shall provide
written notice with the updated information to the COUNTY no later than 10 business days after
the change.
12. Termination:
12.1 COUNTY may tcm1inate this Agreement without cause upon thirty (30) days written notice served
upon the CONTRACTOR stating the extent and effective date of termination.
12.2 COUNTY may, upon five (5) clays written notice terminate this Agreement for CONTRACTOR's
default, if CONTRACTOR refuses or fails to comply with the terms ofthis Agreement or fails to
make progress that may endanger performance and does not immediately cure such failure. In the
event of such termination, the COUNTY may proceed with the work in any manner deemed proper
by COUNTY.
12.3 CONTRACTOR's rights under this Agreement shall terminate (except for fees accrued prior to
the date of termination) upon dishonesty or a willful or material breach of this Agreemenl by
CONTRACTOR; or in the event of CONTRACTOR's unwillingness or inability for any reason
whatsoever to perform the terms of this Agreement.
13. Conduct of Contractor:
13. I The CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has no interest, including, but not limited to, other
projects or contracts, and shall not acquire any such interest, direct or indirect, which would
Page 3 of 11
E-3
Licensing Solution Provider Agreement Number PSA-0001524
conflict in any manner or degree with CONTRACTOR's performance under this Agreement. The
CONTRACTOR further covenants that no person or subcontractor having any such interest shall
be employed or retained by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement. The CONTRACTOR agrees
to inform the COUNTY of all the CONTRACTOR's interests, if any, which are or may be
perceived as incompatible with the COUNTY's interests.
13.2 The CONTRACTOR shall not, under circumstances which could be interpreted as an attempt to
influence the recipient in the conduct of his/her duties, accept any gratuity or special favor from
individuals or firms with whom the CONTRACTOR is doing business or proposing to do business,
in accomplishing the work under this Agreement.
13.3 The CONTRACTOR or its employees shall not offer gifts, gratuity, favors, and entertainment
directly or indirectly to COUNTY employees.
13.4 CONTRACTOR shall establish adequate procedures for self-monitoring and quality control and
assurance to ensure proper performance under this Agreement; and shall permit a COUNTY
representative or other regulatory official to monitor, assess, or evaluate CONTRACTOR's
performance under this Agreement at any time, upon reasonable notice to the CONTRACTOR.
14. Independent Contractor/Employment Eligibility/Non-Discrimination:
14.1 The CONTRACTOR is, for purposes relating to this Agreement, an independent contractor and
shall not be deemed an employee of the COUNTY. It is expressly understood and agreed that the
CONTRACTOR (including its employees, agents, and subcontractors) shall in no event be entitled
to any benefits to which COUNTY employees are entitled, including but not limited to overtime,
any retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, and injury leave or other leave benefits.
There shall be no employer-employee relationship between the parties; and CONTRACTOR shall
hold COUNTY harmless from any and all claims that may be made against COUNTY based upon
any contention by a third party that an employer-employee relationship exists by reason of this
Agreement. It is further understood and agreed by the parties that CONTRACTOR in the
performance of this Agreement is subject to the control or direction of COUNTY merely as to the
results to be accomplished and not as to the means and methods for accomplishing the results.
14.2 CONTRACTOR warrants that it shall make its best effort to fully comply with all federal and state
statutes and regulations regarding the employment of aliens and others and to ensure that
employees perfonning work under this Agreement meet the citizenship or alien status requirement
set fotih in federal statutes and regulations. CONTRACTOR shall obtain, from all employees
performing work hereunder, all verification and other documentation of employment eligibility
status required by federal or state statutes and regulations including, but not limited to, the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, 8 U.S.C. § 1324 et seq., as they currently exist and
as they may be hereafter amended. CONTRACTOR shall retain all such documentation for all
covered employees, for the period prescribed by the law.
14.3 CONTRACTOR shall not discriminate in the provision of services, allocation of benefits,
accommodation in facilities, or employment of personnel on the basis of ethnic group
identification, race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical
condition, marital status or sex in the performance of this Agreement; and, to the extent they shall
Page 4 of 11
E-4
Licensing Solution Provider Agreement Number PSA-0001524
be found to be applicable hereto , shall comply with the provisions of the Califomia Fair
Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code 12900 et. seq), the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964
(P.L. 88-352), the Americans with Disabiliti es Act of 1990 (42 U .S.C. Sl210 et seq .) and all other
applicable law s or regulations.
15 . Entire Agreement: This Agreement, including any attachments or exhibits, constitutes the entire
agreement of the parties with respect to its subject matter and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous
representations, proposals, discussions and communications, whether oral or in writing . This Agreement
may be changed or modified only by a written amendment signed by authorized representatives of both
parties .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused their duly authorized representatives to execute this
Agreement.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a political
subdivision of the State of California
Dell Marl(eting L.P., a Texas corporation
By:~ By:~L_~~~~~~wc~~~~--------
Board of Supervisors
OC T 2 2 2019
Dated : ----1'-----==-----~~·
ATTEST:
Kecia Harper
Clerk of the Board
By :~-~
Deputy "5
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Gregory P. Priamos
County Counsel By ~~ ~susanm:oh,~mtY County Counsel
Dated: O 'cJ aL, ;A
~
Page 5 of 11
ll Zo t ~ )
ocr 2 2 zo19 ~ H~s
Licensing Solution Provider Agreement Number PSA-0001524
Exhibit A
Microsoft Enterprise license subscription and services
··--·---
Line Description Price Level Markup%
Enterprise Online Services** (including Full USLs, From SA USLs,
I Add-om; and Step Ups) M365 E3 and E5, Enterprise Mobility+ Level D -0.56 Security E3 and E5, Office 365 Enterprise El or E3, Windows lO Minus 2%
Enterprise E3 or E5.
2 Enterprise Products Office 365 Pro Plus, Windows I 0 Enterprise, Level D -0.43 Core CAL Suite, Enterprise CAL Suite. -
Additional Products M365 Fl, M365 E5 Compliance, M365 E5
3 Security, Office 365 Enterprise Fl, Project Online, Visio Online Plan Level D -0.43
1 or Plan 2, Dynamics 365, Azure, SQL Server, Windows Server, etc.
Server and Tools Product (applies to Server and Cloud Enrollments
4 only) SharePoint Server, SQL Server, BizTalk Server, Visual Studio, Level D -0.43
Core Infrastructure Suites, etc.
5 All products for Select Plus AgreementNo.7756479. 0.55
6 ' Microsoft Premier Support 2.00
7 Microsoft Unified Support Services 2.00 -·----
8 Microsoft Consulting Services 2.00
Page 6 of 11
E-6
Licensing Solution Provider Agreement Number PSA~0001524
Exhibit B
License Support Provider (LSP) service rates
Certified
Line Description Competency Hourly Rate
(Yes/No)
Data and Artificial Intelligent
I Build Intelligent Apps Yes $425
2 Build Intelligent Agents Yes $425
3 Machine Learning Yes $425 .,. _____ , __
4 Internet of Things Yes $425
5 Globally distributed data Yes $425
6 OSS Databases Yes $425
7 Cloud Scale Analytics Yes $425
8 Data Platform Modernization to Azure Yes $425
9 Windows Server on Azure Yes $425
10 Security & Management Yes $425
II Datacenter Migration Yes $425
12 Modern Business Intelligence Yes $425
BizApps
1 Customer Service Yes $425
2 Field Service Yes $425
3 Marketing Yes $425
4 Talent Yes $425
5 Finance and Operations Yes $425
6 Business Central Yes $425
7 Power Apps Yes $425
8 Power Bl Yes $425
A~ps and Infrastructure ·--------.. ------·---·---
I Azure Stack Yes $425
2 High Performance ComQute Yes $425
3 Cloud Native Apps using Serverless Yes $425
4 Modernize A pps Yes $425
5 SAP on Azure No $425
6 Linux on Azure Yes $425
7 Dcv Ops Yes $425
8 Busit~ess Continuity & Disaster Recovery Yes $425
9 Windows Server on Azure Yes $425
~-~·-·-·-----··--·-··-·-'·----~·----~--
10 Security & Management Yes $425
ll Q_<t!acenter Migration Yes $425
-~-~--··----------······--····-··----------··------· ...
Page 7 of 11
E-7
Licensing Solution Provider Agreement Number PSA-0001524
Exhibit B (cont.)
License Support Provider (LSP) service rates
,-"···-·-
I Certified
Line Description Competency Hourly Rate
(Yes/No)
Modern Wot·lqllace
·-
I User Adoption & Change Management Yes $425
2 Security Yes $425
3 GDPR & Compliance Yes $425
4 Teamwork Yes $425
5 Calling & Meetings Yes $425
6 Modern Desktop Yes $425
7 Office 365 Migration Assistance Yes $425
7a Mail Yes $425
7b Teams Yes $425
7c SharePoint Yes $425
7d OneDrive Yes $425 '" ____
Page 8 of 11
E-8
Licensing Solution Provider Agreement Number PSA~0001524
Exhibit C
Microsoft LSP Participation Form
:vticro~oft LSP Pnrticipation Form
IRFQ nR IVCOc.~IJ.'C' RH.J Od(JU(liS ,!,rt,"chmtnl 31
P~yn11!1\t ~hould b~ m~dQ to
AH,~nh(>~i= H -; k H~"'H
F\h't':i'l)i·f}tJ-C:.H't/ ltf;::r<"fiil~!.'r 1•trr,· (I )Q}
J4! (J \ 4 n-~-t e-:rt f-\:'t~ill 1 ~~ 1>>1
[ t,·,_;til: HfL~~ .1~·1, (>,(,~f q r;n•¢f7.l ,j(~ :~. 9~:~ !~d
' I
8y ~~J~F,ng t>ek:J•JI , a:~u BJ•~E tt'l&t Ril e-l~fc:!rneP~s 'h·lll:-€ s·"·bTittec tw ~t1 ::·-c:-:::11 a~·e:~ L> ,.>!:!>>(1 >?P--ct(no:,l!
~:~h1lp BTD ::-:.·tflPI.J' fC lhe pn:,:Plen! SC 11(!·:1tle j:-E!r r<F(~ t#Rt\ (.(.J.~O:.·~~ RF(: c:·«)C·:.-18 L· h' t£:!:;<1~ C:!LfHJ
:~tt;Clf~ Bt!Ckf~f
J'/':;:1-r lfl!i<l<\0
Page 9 ofll
E-9
Licensing Solution Providct· Agreement Numbet· I'SA-000 1524
Exhibit D
Microsoft LSP Reporting of Active Enrollments Form
LSP Name
RIVCO
Com pony nome
COf1_!r~f:-~~[) _ /UVCO 20800 OOx xx/xx
Microsoft
Agreement
Numbers
Master
Enrollment
01E69633, 01E73134, AND
NEW
Enrollmen Enrollment Start
t Number: Entity: ---+_[)_a~
RiVCJI ~·idP.
(ountv
/t}jonnnttnn 1/01/J
End
Date:
J.!/il/1
Annual Spend
Enrollment ----Enrollment Contact
Contact'-: __ 1 ____ ..:;Eccmcca::ci.:.:l: ___ _
Enrollment
Contact Tel: -------
87oS•I.W 1_:~'::-"f'.:.:":::UI.::.u,_<J'-Y-+_lc._. -+--"b"------1--.::.S.:.:b·.:.:-T.'::.:.',(:::}(::.:.)('::-'·(::.:.JO:___ _____ +I~o,lcl!cclccD.c.oc.e ___ 1.c=Jo=h"-ncc.D_o_:.c:e~!iV_Q'-'rsc;.;ic"'le"''o=··!"'g~+-'-9'-.''-I-'-S.'-'>5'-·'-.L_J...:.I)-I
~---·
···--·-~----·-+-----j----.... ----------~~----------+~--
Page 10 of 11
E-10
Lkcnsing Solution Provider Agt·ccmcnt Numbet· PSAm0001524
Exhibit E
Master Agreement
Attached include the followings:
I) Signature Form
2) Microsoft Enterprise Agreement
3) Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Amendment
Page 11 of 11
E-11
MSE#:
I (MSLI
Tracking
Number)
Doc Tl{pe:
Microsoft Document Headersheet
' Tllis is for informational purposes only •
5-0000004275258
Signature Form
-----
Do not modify the formatting or spacing of this Form above this text
--------
f
---·---------------
Subsidiary: Account Manager Name I Alias:
Country: United States
LAR/LAD/ESA:
Insight Direct USA, Inc.
Program/Version
EA 6 2016
(Scanning Code)
ACCOUNT: County of Riverside
Outsourcer Name:
Business Agreement Number:
Master Agreement Number: 8084445
Agreement Number:
Purchase Order Number:
--------------------------·---------------------------------·-· -----~--------· ----------
Comments:
8/23/2019 9:42:56 PM
E-12
t1
0
Program Signature Form
Note: Elllertlre applic;!hiE <l<.I!V(; !li.llllllms <IS~;or.r;rl<:rl wrilr 1t11~ doc:!Hlh~nl:; ll<:l(11'1 iVlicro:;ofl rr•qrrur~:;
the associatml activ<: nuri1lll?r bt) rrl<lrczrted IWri;, r.lr iic,tr2cl bei•)W JS llf!W
I --~;:--·;rrpo~~;-:;-llliS -form, ·custornf!l -c,111 n1ec1n ;~:;~-;~;:·;~~~-~~~;~~~~~roilecl /lffi~i~~-~
vt:rn~~~~~'lrhwr, lm·.trlrltinn, or nthr;r r;rrty entering into <1 votrlmP.Iir.ol\singprogr8111 ngrcem.~nt
Thrs sr~trr<llllrr. fvllll ancl illl contr11cl llocun!entl> 1cJenlifred in lire taiJie IJerow me en(erecJ into b£M~t?r'n
the Cue,Jomernmi the M1crosofl Affili<lte signing, <lS of the effective date identified below.
Enl~~flrise Agreement X2ll-10209 ~~~-:---------------
.,Choose 1\grer:mcnt;· Document Number or Code __ ----------
<Choo~ ~n!Q_C:mcnt:-Document Number or Code
<Cilo_o_s_e_~gr_~l?.'!i.~'].l~.-----.. ------·---_ _QocunHlJ.:r_!_NumQ.e.!.s~~odt?_ ______ . ____ _
<Choose Agreenh~nt> Document NumbH or Code
<Ciioose Enr:ollirlenitReqistral!uiP Doctmwnt ·r~ut~r~et 01. Cocie •
<Choose Enrollntentlr~egistratiun'' (rm;urnent Nruuller or Code
<Choose Enrollment!Regi~lwtion> --=-:.J Cloc:ument Number or Code
<Ciioose Enrollmenl!Regtstration> Document Numt:rer or Cocfe
· .:£l.12.~~~E.').i2!1Illeni!R~gi_?l~?..ti0.~ _ _p_o_sument f'!t~~l2_t>:LQ;:_f_0."~---------
Arl1endn~~~Ug_£orrlract_Qocunlet1~------CH.·I-CPT ·OPT-FWK {r_ltlw) __ _
----------·--------·-------·-· ----··-------------------··----
----------·-----------·-' ----------------------------'
Lly s1gning below, Custonrr;>r and the M!r~loso(l Affili<Tie agree thtlt b•Jtll rwties (I) lt8Ve rrccdved. rt]<Jd
and understand tile above contract d<Jr::w'nenls. rncludrng any wellsites or docllrnents inc!Jiporated by
reference and any amendments anrl (;!I agree lobe bound \)y the terms of <lll such doeumonh.
I
Name of Entitj·!mf},llt I>~J}J.2_1ity name)' County or Riverside
Signature· /}~U:!!FE!_--· · i
Printed Fir7~ncllast NanH!' Ric /1.-~-.,..-J~R""'"-. --t--\..,.-c>..-; _____ 1 __ ------
Printed Title 5 r. Procur-e i\'i-k.V\·1· Cot·\ tYA(.J S l:>e c.,(., I'~)
_signature __ ~~1te:___o_S/z_zi_~?_l_'j _______ , ____ .. ___ .. ________ _
TaxiD
E-13
'111'-fl& ... ,
' '"'"": ~ .~
Signature '-"'"'-'~=----'"·-z~:;....~;.....e::::.c...--1 _________ ........ ----··········---l-··----·loM
Printed First mid Lilst Name
Pdntcd Title
Signature DatP.
(tJHIC.: fv1•c·-..~olll\fftll!"•lt CCU'll(·ff.IG'l\l
0111ional 2"" CustomP.r signa tum or 011tsoun:er 5ign.ltum (if applicable)
Nmne of Entity (must lw legal P.fltily namo)'
Sign<lture' ____ _
Printed First iliHI Last Name•
Printed Title
Si8natme Date'
• iwlir:.'tll!~: IHtJuim,(~eiCr-·--·--··-·-------------··-------··----··------------~
Namo of Enltly (must IJC> lcuat entity name~·
Signa tum'
Printo<l Firsl and L:-~st N;uno'
Printed T ilia
Siunature DMe'
• IOc/ICilles /'tX!IIII'IYI liolt'l I
If Cuslomo' requires plly31c<ll med1o. ad(lilionzli conl<~~lo, 01 h; rr,por1111g JnullifJI(:l p1eV1Uus EJHOIIrnenls,
inc.lude lhP. fll))li0[1rialc ff)rrn(s) wi:h ll11s t~iunature 101111
/\fler lllls SI~Jnature lonn is sig110.d b·y lho Cuslnrner. ~eJJI.I il <HHIIhe C'Jnlr3~l OO.;U11\Cnts to Cuf.l<liller's
Chillllli~l pariiH:!I or MICII)SOft c!CCf)ll11t mananer. wh01l1USI SlliJ111it lh1~111 to thrj following <lrkfrc~s W!JP.JI
tliC si(Jilillurc for1111S full\' execut!Jcl by Microsoft. Cust0mer will re.ceiw <J t;onfllrnalic)J1 eop·,'
Microsoft Co1porati011
Depl S!i I, l.folunH: L1cenSJJ1(1
6100 Nml !\oM, Suite 210
Reno. l~ev;1dn 80':'> 1 ·1.1 13 7
USA
E-14
MSE#:
I
(MSLI
Tracking
Number)
Doc Type:
Microsoft Document Headersheet
' This is for informational pwposes only '
5-0000004275258
~Agreement
I
Do not modify the forma.tting or spacing of this Form above this text
Subsidiary: Account Manager Name I Alias:
Country: United States
LAR/LAD/ESA.
Insight Direct USA, Inc.
ProgramNersion
EA 6 2016
(Scanning Code)
--·-------~--
ACCOUNT: County of Riverside
Outsourcer Name:
Business Agreement Number
I
Master Agreement Number: 8084445
Agreement Number:
Purchase Order Number
------···-··-·--------· . ·······--·····---· ........... -~-.... ··-----------· -----~-------·
Comments:
i
I
8/23/2019 9:42:31 PM E-15
0·
0 Volurnc Liccn~~in~J
Enterprise Agreement State and Local
~·lo\I•H \ht• \Nilh f'~k,l<l~l)ll nn!'lilld.:;~ .t•U11-?PI11~1 111 o f.1F'H1Sil!l J1li'WtH!·" t!t,.J ~~!','!ct .. .._, /•,!_HP'"JIII...lld
Tl11s Microsoft t::nterpw;e /\weement ("'•.gre·~ment") is entered into IJetween the entit1es iclent.lfiecl on tht·
signature form· !
Efft~clivG lint e. Tile effective dale of th1s Ag1'eement is the earliust elrect•ve cla\0 of any E•1rollnwnt e11le•ecl
11110 uncler ll1is 1\greement or the date I•Aicrosoft accepts tillS Ag1eement. wtlicl1ev8r IS earlier
This Agr.:::ern•::.•nl consists of ( 1) lllesC' Agreement terrns <Jflrl conditions, includ111g any ;.;tnemlinents and til<:!
si9•1aiU1e toun ancl all a\tac11111en1s Klentifieei'tt1ereu1, (21 tt·u~ Product Terms applicable to Pro(IUcts licHnsell
under lilts Agreement, (3) the Online Services Terms. (4) ;;my Affiliate Ellfolllnent en!e1ed into t111(Jer lt11s
1\orcement. cmd (S) <1ny or(lor submtttcd under t11is i\orccmr;nt
Please note: Documents referenced 111 th1s 1-\weernent but not attactv:.:<l to tile si~1nature form may be found
at U!lR.Ji~tJII.:N tnicr~s;_g_ftcofJ1}J.'CrJIISill(jSOP(racts <lflcl <lie illCOff'O(f)ted Ill !IllS r\yl\"8fl1enl lJy reference,
111cludin9 the rrocluct Tenns and Use l~igllts These <locttmen!s lll<t'/ contcllll aclcfitional tc:rms ancf
conctitions for Products licensed under this f\~Jreemenl and may be cllanoecl lrom t11ne to time Custornet
should review such docun1ents c<trehtlly. both <tt the tilm.o of signlfl£1 nnd renodic<.~lly tllere<trter. and fully
unclerstancl alltet'ms and conclilions applicable to F'roclucls licensed
Terms and Conditions
"1. Definitions.
il. Wltl1 reuard to Customer.
f
(i) :my ~1ove•nment agency, department. office, instruP;ent:llity, cllvis1on. lll111 or otl1er entity ot
the state or local r~overnnient that is supervised l>y or is patl of Customer. 01 whicil
supervtses Customer or of wl1icl1 Customer is a JlcHI or wr1ich •s un<ler r:ommon &11pervisl0n
wtttl Customer:
(ii) any GOUilty I)OIClliQil, comrTlOIIW~alth. city, 111\frliCifl<llity, town, township, special purpOSe .
cl1sl1 icl, or OUi•?l stmilm lj•pe of govetnnwntal lf)S\rument<~lily established by the t<~ws ol
Customer's state and located within Customer's slate junsdiction and geowanhtc
boundaries. and
(iii) any othe1 et1hly il' Custorne'r's stale expressly <lllthorized by the laws of Customer's slatt;
to pwct1ase trr\(Jet SIBle cot1ili1Cts: provided that a stale 1111d rls Nf1liates sh11il not. (or
purposes of this clehnition tJe con5•dered ID l.Jt Alfili;J\es of the fl:)deral governn1enl ancl its
Affiliates <tnd '
b. with regMcl Ia Microsoft, ;,ny le 1g<ll ent•lY lh<'~l Mietosofl owns. tl1al owns M1crosofl. or that i~.
under c;ommon owncrshtp wtlh Microsoft.
·customer' means t11e le~tal entiiV that llas entered into U1is 1\greementvv1th Microsoft
i
"Custornr')f Dal<( means <til d'.lli.l. ir1Ciur:f1ng ullte·<t. !'.ound, :;oftw;:~re, image, or virleo files tl1at ;:11·e prcM<I~cl
to M1crosofl by, or on behalf of. t~n Enrolled Affihate and its Alft'i<Jte::: through use of Online Se•vtces.
"\'lay" means a cal'"nd3r day, except for references that specify 'business clay"
"Enrolled 1\fftliaiE:-me(ln:; <-111 enlity, eilhr'r Cl!Siofl16r or '""'l one of Ctiston,e•'s /lfftli<ltes lt1at has ce~1terer1
into an Enrollment un(!er tt;is Aqre0•nenl
P~q~o I 1)1 II
IJflOUitt'nt i~ll·IU:~r/J
E-16
··Enrolln,enl'' rnean~ tile clocul\lf!nt t11at an En!olt,;d J\fhliate subn11ts uncl·al this r\greerne11t to plac(~ orders
fo1 Pro(lu•:ts
Enterp11se" means an E11rolle•:l Affiliate ami tile 1\ffill<lles for wlli•:l1 it i~ respc1nsible clnd '.:t1oo:ses un i(,,
Enrollrnent to include in 1t<> ente1 pr1~e ·
I
'Fi>:es· rnea11s f)roduct fl>'es, modlfu;aticlllS or onhancemenls, or theu· den,/<1\IVE:S, that Microsoft e1tt1er
rel.,ases gen£~r8lly (such as l'rouucl sen;!ce 'p<~cKslor provicles to Customer to <~ci<lress a sr.eclflc ISSUe.
"lxense" means 111e right to <lownlot~d. >~lstall. acce:;;, <HHI use n Product F<'H certa1n rJwducts a License
1nay lw available on a ff>·ed terrn or subscription l)asis ('·Subscription License''). LIC<C/fses for Online
Service!i wtll be consid~re<J SutJscnpliO!l Ucenses
'Microsofl" 111eans IIH~ Micro~oft 1\ffilialr.; tllili h<lS e'nl•3red int(' lillt; t\·~10P.I1le1·1t or <JI1 Enrollment i111d 11s
Affiliates, <lS app1opriate
I
Online Services' means the fv1lcrosoft-l1o~ted ~Frvi<:r.$ irlellllf!rH.I as Onl1nc':-S<~<Viet::s 111 l'1e Protlucl Terms
I "Online Services. lenns' means the C~dd1tion<~l terms that apply to CliS(Onlel'::; u-;e of Onlint> SefV<ces
published on the Volume L1censmg S1te and'up(:atecl from I me to lime:
"Product· mean:; :,1!1 products icl<'::nlificd "~ lt1e PrNiur:l Term~1. tHJ01 ;1:-; <ill So!twMe. Onlme Serv1ces 11ncl
ot11er w0b-basec1 serv1ces, includin~l pre-release or bel<t versions
··Product Teuns ·means the <iocun\etltlllal prov1dE:s lilfonnat1on about Microsoft Products and Profess10ni:ll
Services 8'J8ilable lhiOU~jll VOillll18 licensing nw ProdiiCl Term5 ri()C!,Inli'-111 is publisl\8(1 on tile Volume
Licen:.ill£1 Site and 1s updated from tune to l•me
"SL A'' 111e<H1s Service Level /\weement. which spec1f1es tile minimwn servict~ level for Onli11e SePtices an( I
1s publish·~cl on the IJolurno licensing S1le.
"Softw.~rr::·· llH!cHl:S licen~<'!d COJli'.:ls of fvi!CIOsolt software ldentifiecl on t11e l'roducl Terms. Softw<lrt-noc~ not
tnclude Online Serv1.;e~, \)ut Software may IJe P<lfl of <111 Online-Sr.rvice
'Software i\SSI11311Cf':" IS an offennq I))' f1~icrosott that providiJs new v,>rs1on r19hls a11U otiH?r henefils k•1
Produch as lurtllcl de:>Gribed in tl1e Product' Terms.
'Trade Sec1e1" n1eans infom•ation that is not. ~)ener;:~lly lmown or re<11.hly asc•.~llain<iiJie to the public, i1a2.
econom1c Villue :'H a 1esull. <tncl has beet\ suhjectlo reasonCJble step!:l uncie1 the c!fc~l"ll3tf:HlC(~!, l<1 ma1ntam
it~ secrecy. I
"use" 01 ·run" means to copy. mstall. use, <~CC"'f;S 1N>pl3y. run or otiH21WISe 111leract
I
··us,'! Rl£thls' means tlw use rigl,ts 01 IE<il'llS of service for each PICI(Iuct p11blished on tile Voll!iw~ Licr~nsing
Site and upd<~ted from tin1e to tim~;: The Use Rights supersede the term~ of a•w end us·~r license <l']leement
that accomr<mies a Product ll1e Use f~1ghls fo' Softw01re are published l)'f Microsoft in lilt? f-'1 ocluct Tenn3
The u~'e Rigl1ls f01 01il111e Se!\•ices illt.> pubfished in the Onli111~ Se1vh;es Tr~ll1l!;.
··volulll"! Lw.ensin') Sile' mean'> ~1l!p'/.\li','i'.'l_i_U_LIO!'.•)fi.oJm/h•:onsinlli£.C-!.!..\J.!.i'!"J~ or 3 succe(i&or ~11<:·
2. How the Enterprise program worlcs.
n. Genom!. The t.:nterpnso nrogram cons1s\s ol tllP. te11ns and conclillons on wl'ucll an Enrolled
Affiliate may acqu11e PIOCJucl Licenses Under the Enterpnsr: progrfllll, Cu~tor11er ilnd !Is
Mfihi:lte:; rn<ly order Lict:nses fol ProdLIGis by entenng into Enrollment~
b. Enl'ollments. Th.-:l Enterpnse progran1 g1ve;~ Customer 31HJ/or its Affilrates t11e al)ility te> enter
if)IO one or more Enrollments to order Products. Su1Jscr1pl1on Enrollrner•ts may be aWl!lal..Jie for
some of these Enrollments t~otwilllslancling any ot11er proviswn of t111s 1-\grGr:lrnE•nl. only
Enrolled Affiliates identifir;,d in an Enrollmenl will be responsible fOI r;omplying with tile lel<llS
of that Enrollmt,nt. includuu, t11e terms of th1s f,qrePrnent 111Corpol<lled l!y rt~fen':nce 111 t11e1l
Enr()linH:;nt -' .
Pa~t'~ 2 df 11
[ii)(U!Ot~l11 X~/ll-Hl?jiJ
E-17
c. Licenses. Til>'! lyp•?s of Ltu;!nses <ti!Citla[)le me II) l..ict"nses ol11nin·2cl utHJet Soft·.'•'"''"
/issurcmce (LI-:S•\) <lttd (?.) Suh:;crirtion Lt1;enseo. These Ltr:onsc t;rpes. as well t;~ addti!C•ndl
Lt<:;ens'" Type(:;, ;.He furl her dcscrtbed in It"' Pror.lucl Ltsl.
3. Licenses for Products.
I
n. License Grant. MtcJosofl £jlants lhrc Entc•rpttS(~ .:3 non .. exc:lusive, Vl(lli(fwtefe <Wd ltmitect "~Jill
lo (fO.vnload. tn51i!ll ttnd w.;e software f'roctuc.ls ond lo access find use t11e Online ServiGes
r:ach in tiF.:: quantity mdere<l under an Et1rollmenl Tlte rtslt1ts wanlecl ate sutijecllo the te;ms
ot ll'tl~· Agreement, li1e Usc" H:ghls nml t11e i'roc!IICI Terms. Microsofl 1escrves ell rigl1ls nol
e;qJressly [Jmnlerl itl this f-1[)188rili?IIL
ll. Omation of Liqmses. SulJscnptlon Licenses ancJ rnost Suflw..Jre Assu1anre 119i1h Cill"
ternpori'fry 8t'JCI exp11e •Nh(;'n the ;;~ppllc<tble Er11ollmenl ·5 te1rnirwle<l or expir<?s, unle::.s tl1•3
Enrolled l\rfil1at8 e:.<ercises E1 lluy-oul option wlw::tt is EN81I~1lile lor sonw StlbSr:llption Licenses
Et.cept 11s Dill81Wise noted 111 the appltcaf)i0 EntOIIIIW:nt 01 Use f:(ig!tts. 311 ether LicensP.~
become pelpt-;tual only 'Niten all PEIYtnenls for thvl L1cense h:;;ve lleen n1acl•2 and !he init1~:~t
El'rollro,:ml term has exp1red
c ApplicaiJte Use l~ights.
(i) Products (oilier th\111 Online Servlc•3S) 'ill'~ Usol~iqhts in effect on tlroelfective date of
lllE· appii•:AlJie Enrollment term •hill ::tpply to Ente1pr'is·~·i; US•?. of the 'Jcrston of each Produc!
l11<Jt 1s ell! rental t11.:~ t1rne r:or 1\Jiure ve1sions and new Products. l11c Use Rights in effect
when lilo!Se verstons <1nd F'roclucts nrc f1rst mle:'ISed will apply Ctlartges Mtcrosoft tn~ikes
to 1111: Use Ri9hls for 8 p::littcul<u V£•rston will not apply unless tile Enwlled A.ffiliale chooses
to !lave \t)ose ct1<J!l(jes apply The Use Rigl\ls appl1cnble to pcrpellk'll L1censes lh'll were
<Jcquitcd undm ;:1 p1evious aqreerne111 01 I:Cnroliment are dete1nlil1l':d l.ly the Awee:nent 01
Enroll111ent under wi11cl1 they were acquired Renewal of Soltware Assurance does 1101
cllall~Y' wll:d1 Use Right:. .'tpply to those t.icetl~;es
(II) Online S(~rvices r or Online ~lerv1ces. tllG Use n1ghts in Gtfect on the subscription sl<lrt
ctale will apply for 111e sullscnpt1on terrn ns def11101J in tile rJrorJuet ·r ,,m1s
rl. Downuratle rights. En1011r~d Arl.iiale tnay ''se 2111 e;trii':Cf vtr~ion r>f a Pro\l~rcl rJUler lha11 Onl111e
Setvtc.et; llwn the W!rSIIJrt thilt 1s current on lhf;! effective dale or the fmollrn~Jnt. For Licenses
acquired in 111e current Emollrneill tt~rm. tlw US•? Hi gills for thE: curr•'?tll vers1on apply to tht~ use
of tlw eatltel verston If tile ea:11er F'roduel version nKiudes fe8tt11es that are not in the new
Ve1s1on. lben tlw Use l~t\Jhl:; <lpplicahle lo the emh0r velston <Jpply w1lh respec:l to those
fe<ttures.
e. New Version Rights under Software Assur<tncu Entolled Afftlt<lle rr'usl order nnd IWJIIlt<Jitl
contllll.fOIIS Software 1\ssuranc(O• 'coverage for each License ordered Willi Soflware Assmnnce
cov0rage, EniGrpnse automatically nas the r1gl1t to us(;: a n~w version of a licensed Proclttcl as
soon as ilts releasetJ, even 1f En1ollroci Aff11tate chooses not t<J use 1118 new version inunerlialely
(i) E,xcept as otherwise permill~d under an Enrollment. use of lhe new version will be suiJject
lo the ll8W vr;rsion's Use r{i911tS
(ti) 11111e l.1cense foi' the e!lfllet V~!tSIOn of the Pr~tdw;t i~ p<;rpeluJI <11 !he !me the rr~;w ver<>HJn
1:> releasfecl, tho License for uw ll('W version ·.-,•ill also be perpetual Perpetual L1censes
olllainerl t11rouqh Sofh•,.are Assuranc8 repiao~ any IX'!tpelufll Licenses for tt··e r;!atltr~r
f. Uconsn confrrmation. Tt1•:; flbreell)ent tllG applicable Enrollment Enrolle:! Affiliates o·cle1
confirmation. ami any tlocurrrent8ilon ev1clt~ncmst transfers ol pHpetual Lit:•~nses. logeti1E:'I wt1t1
p10of of [l8'/11H':11l. wtll be Enrolled 1\fflliatc'g (:ljidence c>f <JII l:tccn,;es ohti'linocl t.ln•jer an
r:nrollrnr~tll
{"';·1'1(: J rd II
L•·)t:ui'w~• 1 x·2o 1'J:!d1.!
E-18
!J. Reoi'!J<lllil<ltions, consoliclations and privatizations. If lh•c number of LH:r;r·~<~s co•;erecl l>y
an Enrollment ch<H10<"S b'/ rnore 111<Jn l•"n poro?nt <1:> ::~ result of ( 1.1 a r<JOrfJ<Hrrze~tion
<.:on;,olrdatiorr or rr ivalizrrtrmi of illl entity or an operalin~t drvrsion (2) a pr ivntization of an
1\ffili<lte or <m tJj.ler nlin<J d•vision of f:Prollr~cl Affrliatt) or un\' of its Aff !rates, or (3 i a r;orrsoirll.::rt•orr
incluclrng a mE:1~1er wrlh a !llircJ parlj' t11al has an exrslrri<J agreen1enl or Enrollrnent. Mrcrosoft
wrll work wil11 l::rHolled 1\H·Ii<rtr: ir1 !J'Jml f;11tlr to dP.ti':rrnirHl how to :1ccornrnocJate it:> r:ha1198d
circurnslances in tlw corrt<}Xt of ihis Ntrf:emenl I -
4. Malcing copies of Products ancf rc-imnging rigl1ts.
a. General. Errrollt)d Affilrnte rnuy 111,1i<e ns rn:Jny oJpres of Protlucts. :,1s 11 needs to cilslnt:ule
tl'rern within tile l:nterpris<:l Copies mw-1 t:<e true ancl cornrlelc {rncltrding cor1'rigl1l an<:l
tr·ao:Jcrnarl< notrcesj 110111 111astor coplt'!S oblarnecl from a Mtcrosofl 8pprovr3d lulfilln1ont source
EIHoller.t Nlili818 I11ClY usc a tllird party to l'llQI:e these copres, bot EriiOIIecl Affrliale awees it Will
i)e res,:.onsibl8 for <H11' third p~1rt'i's actions. Enrollr:;cl Affiliate o;groes to rn<'li<e redS<)I\(ltJir. efforts
to notify rts emplovees. agents. ancl <1ny ot11er rndrv;cluals wt1o use t11e Products that tile
Pr:xlucts are lrc:ens•3d from M:cr\isofl nncl suiJJCCt to \he term:;; of \lli:; 1\~treenrent
IJ. Copies for trainingif:villualion and lmcl<·llp. For nil Products olher l'li1n Online Ser•!lccc'ii.
Enrollec1 1\ffrl18le may 1.1) use liP to 20 complrrnenlsry copie~ or ilny lrcens€<<1 P1ocluct 111 8
cfecfjcateriiWilling facility On ItS premises for purpOSOS of !mining 011 til at f)SrlicufCll l'rO<JliCf. (2)
use up lo 10 complimentarv copies of any ProcJucts for a 60-day ev<JiuatiQn pt;rrod. C~nd (3) use
orw compl•n1E;nti1ry copy of <111y liccnseu Product (01 bacl< ·up or orchival purposns for ench ol
its Jisliw:t qeoqraphic locr.rlions Tri<1ls for Online Servrc:es may be <lllllilable if sw~cified in tile
Use Rights
c. Riuht to re·imnue. In certarn cilse~. ~>'3-11!1i'lfjing is permitted usin[! 1110 Proctuct rnecJi.'l llll'lc>
Microsolt Product rs licensed (·I) from 811 original equipment munufaclul er (OEM), (2) as a 1.111
paclwgec1 Procluct tllrough a r•3li1il sowce. or i3) uniler Clnother Microson progr;lrn. t!lennKclin
provrd•e<i unde1 ll1is ;\gre.~rnenl'may gon.eralht be used lo create una~1es for use rn place ol
copies provided through thCJt separate source. Tl1ic; nghl n colldlilnnal upon the followill~J.
(i) Separate Ll·:errS•?S must be acquire<J friJill the Si2parate sowc8 for eact1 Pr0ctuctlilC1t r!; rr:-
rrnaged
(ii) rt1e P!Od,rct. lar··~tt18Qe versron. ;;rnd coP1ponenls of U1e copie~i made rnur.l be lfl(~ntrc<rl to
lhe Product. lan~tua9e. v·~rsion, and <111 Cl.11rlporrents of llle cop1es llwy rt:pl<~ce iir'ld lih':
llllrnhP.r l!f copres or instances of tt1e re-llllagecl Product permittee! mn1ain?. I he same
(iii) Except for copres of an opetDlrng !;ystern and copies or Producls licenser! r111cler ctnol!1er
Microsoft prowam, t11e Product type (e (I Uppra(ie or fult License) re·im;;Jged 1r1ust l)e
rdentrcallo th'" Produ<:t type licen:-;er! fron1 the sepnrale sour·ce
(ivl Enrolled Affiliate mu!;l <Jdh<~re to <rny Plo:Jucl·srJ•=crfrc processes or requlrr?mimls for re-
rmagl'l9 I(Jentifletl in ti1e Product Terms
Re-irnnged Pr'(Jrf\rcl~; remain ~.ut\Jeel to tire terms ancl dSe fi\JI11s ot llle Licen5e <required from
the sepmale sourc0 This suiJsection does not cre<rle or extend iliiY M•crowll Wnrr<wly or
s11pport obligation
5. Transferring and reassigning Licenses.
n Ur.ensc transfers l.rcense lrai•sfers arr:: Pot pcerr·•)lltetl. !'1>:r:ept ll1at Customc;r or an l:nr:dl•xl
Affiliate may lronsfer only fully p'air:i [lr;;rpetuCII l.rc~:nses trY
(i) an Affrllali~. 01
(ii) :or tlwd party solely rn CO'Ith'H:trnn wilil t11e lransrer of t)a'ciware 01 enrployees lo wilo111 U1e
Licenses hsve beerr n•;signfid (1$ p;irl or (1\1 apr ivatc?al:orr of an Nfilra1E• or Jgenq• 01 of an
F'ng·~ ·I or II
IJnUit!l\~nl :-~{~(_!. l\l~L1!J
E-19
operating drvlsion of Enrolb1(1 AlfllrniE· or <lll flllill<lto (l:l) 8 reorganizatror1 or (Ci <J
consolrrl<llron
Upon suc11 transfer. Custom•?r 'or Enrolled Aflili<1h~ must unrnst<lli nnd discofllirhlf" using t11e
licensed Prut1Lrct 811(i render any cop1es unusable
11. Notificatioll of LicetiSI! Transfer Enrolle(! fllfiliate f)H!Sl notrfy rvltcrosnl! of [I Lrcenselransfer
by complef'ng a license' 1ransfer form v.·llicll can be obtarned from
1.!1lfL//wwxtJ~Jfrosof! t:(•llr!l:cen:->irlnlnorrl(!:.'!!L'! l"lnd sendiii(J tile cornplelecl form to Microsofl
ljefore tile License transfer. No Licens.:' transfer wrll be ve1lrd urrless Enrolled Affihale provKJes
to the transferee, ancl tile transferee accepts in '.'!riling, cloc.umrm:s 5uffrcient to em1hle tiH':
trilnsferee to "'~":ertarn the scorn~. pwpose 3<1cllllllilatrons of 11112 f rg11IS granted b)1 Mk:rosofl
unr,ler the lrr.enses bemg twnsfem~rl trnclflf1ingthe applrcahle UsF Rrgl1ts. use ancl transt•')r
n:•strrct•ons. warr<OJnties andlirnitatrons of liabrltty) Any Lrcense tmnsft~l nolrnade irr cornpliEwce
'llith Iris section wrll be void
c. lntemal i\ssifJillltent or Licenses and Software Assur<t11ce. Lic0nses ni\Ct Softwflre
A'55Wc111Ge lll1J51 be ilS:>igned to a ~;rng!co user Ol" de11ice wr!Jlln t11e Enterrnse Licenses arrd
Sollwnre 1\ssuran~;e may be rcassrgned within tile Enterpri5e (lS descr;becl in 1111~ Usr? Rifthls
6. Term nnd termination.
a. Terrr1. The tr·mn of this Agmernent will be ~161utl cCJierKiar monll1s lrornlhu eflectrve ci<Jie urrless
tc:rrninilted by e1llwr pnrty nr; described below Eacl1 Enroll!llent wrll have tlw term provided in
lllill Enrolhnenl
h. Termination without callse. Ertlle:· party may terrmn<~le this /\gr0ernent. wittroul. c<wse. ~rpon
60 dill'S' wnlten not!l:e. In the ev.'!nl of lerminr~lion, new Enrollments willnotlle accepted, brrl
<my existing E nrollme•ll wrll continue for the term of su(;h F.nrollment <.lnd will wnlinue to !)(~
(JOVem•~d by 1111S i\grt~t'llli~nt
c. Mi(l·torrn terrnln<~tlon for non-'ai>Jlroprintioll of FIIIHis. Enrolled l\fltli8\e may t•311llil1<1le lhrs
/\greemenl or 811 t:nrolllllent wrthoutliatrlity rennlty or turllrer oblrgalion to make pa)·mrmts rl
funds lo mal<e payn1ents uPder the Agreement or Enrollment crrc not approrrrOJiecl N allor;;llf~d
by the Enrolled Nfrh~te fm f;ur.h' t>urpose
ct. Tet·mitwtion for cmrse. INrlhmrt lrmrlrng <111\' othN 1('111Gclres it may !·rave, erlher p<my may
te1111irwte ;~n Enmllrnent rf ll1e ot11er party materr.!lll'/ br•!!:=tCile<: its oblr}J<Jtion~ und<;r thrs
Agreement. inctucirny (-Jny obhyatron to sub•111t orders or pay mvoices Except 'Nherc the breach
is by it~. nature not cuwble within 30 days, the terminating pariy must give lhe other party 30
days· notice of its rntr:mt lo terminate ancl an opportunity to cure the hre-ac11
If Micror,oft g•ves sucl1 notice to a11 Enrolled Affrliatc. 1\ilrcrosoft al3o writ grve Customer Cl copy
of \llEll notice and Customer i:lgrees to help re~;olve the breach. If the breach afiecls o111er
Enrollments .:m(l cannot he resolvecl hetwer::n Microsofl on<l Enrolle:! 1\ffrllate, loQet11er wrt11
Custornr:!r'E help, within a re•-Jsonable period of ti'lle, rvticrosolt rnay terminate thrs A~uec:nrent
an<l all Enrollments under it. If M Enrolled Mfiliate censes to be Customer's /\fhllat8, it must
fJfOIIIplly notify Microsoft and Nlrcrosoll may lerrninCJI0 thoc; former 1\ffili<~lcis Enrollment If an
Enrollacl Affrhak termin<Jies its Enrollment as a result of a 1Jreacl1 by Microsoft. or if Micro~oft
tcrmrnates <Jn Enrollrne111 because Enrolled Affrlrale cevses to be C•Jstome(s 1\ffilrate lllen
Enrolled 1\flrliate will t1i:W8 the early h:lrrlllnalion rigl1tS described Ill the EnrolirTient
c. Enrly tertnin.ltion. If (I) ;w Enrolled Affilrate lermrnales 1t3 Enrolln1er1t a3 a result ol i.1 !Jreflch
by Microsoft, or (2) rf Microsoft termm,;~tes an Enrollment because the Enrolled Affili<ile h<JS
ce,1sed to be an Aliiliale of Cuslom,?r. or (3) Enrolled Affiliate terminates ;:~n Enrollment for non-
8ppropriation of funds. or {4) Microsoft terminates an Enfollmenlfor non-paynrent due lo non-
Bppropriation of funds thrm IIH~ Enrolled Affrlr8k "'"" hil'/0 the following optrons:
(I) It may immediately pay the total remaining amcwnt rlue. rn\.ltKiir.g <JIIrn~;I;:JIIrnents. 111 wllkh
case. the Enrolled 1\ffil!ale will have perpetual rrghts lor .'JII Lrcenses. rt has ordered. or
i
l·1 aw,• !"1 ul 11
f1n-:tllliPirl X2r,.l()l0()
E-20
fii) II tnay pay oni','3illounts clue as of llw·ICoii.I11118I10il ctatt~. in wtw:11 C8St~ 1110 Em{diecl Affiliate
will have rerpPIII<tl Ucenses for
'I) all co;::>ies of Proclucts (inclurling t11e latest version of Proctucts orclered under Sl\
coverage in H1e Clli rent tenn) for 1.'111icl1 payrnent t·,as l>een tn?Jcle in full ancl
2) ti!G f1lii111Jer ol copi0s of Products il h<J;; orclererl (inclticling lho tatef~l vr?tston or
Ptoclucts orrJerecl uncler Software Assurc:tnc'" coveraqe in current lern1) 11181 is
propoilt0118l to tile totclt of •nst<tllinenl !Kl)'lltents p(lid versus totdl ;;11ll0lllll3 Clue (p81CI
ancl pay11ble) if tile early termlnvlion had not occurrecl
(iii) In tlw c.%f~ of e<tily termination undc-:r sul,scriplion Enrollments. Enrollwl Affiliate •Nil! I1.'1V(!
tile following opt ton~:
·I) Fot elifJil>le Proclucts. Et1ro led Affiliate may Ol)tain peipelual License~ CIS clescnbecl in
tlic: !;ection ur the Enrollment tttlerJ "Buy-out option." provkled ltral l\•ticrosort receives
ttJe huy-out order for those Licenses within 60 da>'S <Jfter l:nrolk~ct 1\ffilti:ll(" providf!s
nottce of tennination
'?.) In lh•: t::Vetl! of ;;t l)re<~')l lly rvltuosolt, if Custor11e1 cliooses not to exe1t:ise a l>uy-mtt
option, M1crosolt will 1ss'tie t::nrolled AfftlattR .:1 crellit lot any amount rmrl in <.Jclvant.e
for Subscription Licenses that 111e E nterprtse Will not be able to use to do the
tetmination of the Enrollrnt?ltt.
I
f\lo!hin~1 in this section shall 8Hect pet petue~l License rights a':quimd t?ittlr;r in a sr~pClt ak·
agreement 01 111 0 priCJt tcrrn of t1111 terrHtnatecJ Enrollment
f. Effect of termination or expira~lon. WIH-)11 11n Enrollment expires or is termi1lalect,
(i) Enrolled Aff•liale must order Licenses lot ail copies of Proclucts it ha!.; run for which tt has
1101 previous!)' SL,bmilted an brcfet f1ny and <Ill unpaid payments for any order of <tny ldno
rer<lCJin dLte <md p<Jyal>te. E r-c.epl <IS tWWicled in the subsP.dion tiliP-d "!= atly l"'rminatton." :-ll/
unpaicl payments for Licenses irnlllecli<~!etv become due and payable.
(11) L::nrolled Affiliate's right to Soflwar'" Assurance benefits under this t\oreetnent ends if il
do('!:i nol re11ew Sort ware 1\ssurar,ce
g. Modi Ficnllon or termination of an Online Snrvic(! for roglllillory reasons. Mtcrosoft may
rnoclify or te1111inate an Online· s.~rvic.e wll8re li1ere is any cwrent or future government
requrrement or obligation ti1<Jt. \I) Sti\JieCb Mic;ro!>oft to e~r'v reyut~;twn or requirement not
generally npplicable to businesses opBr21ting in the jun::-.diclion. (2\ rrl';:,eltl5 " h<lr<lslitp l<)r
Microsoft to continue operating tl1e Onl1ne Service without modific<Jtion. <.Jndlot (3) cati:;~:;
rvltcrosofl to believe these terms or !lte Online: S'.':!i'IJiC<:: may contlict Wttl1 any suc11 requirement
01 ot>lt~tc.tion
ll. Program updates. Mtcrosoft may 111JI<e ci1811\JE:S lo tim:; program t11at wtll m<•lw it necessary
for Customer <lnd tlS Enrnl\e(l Affili:'lte,; to enter into new 8£Jieements <Hlcl Enrolltnents at tl1e
t11ne of an Enrollment renewal I
7. Use, ownership, rigllts, wid restrictions.
I
il. Proclucls. Unless otherwtst~ spectfie(l ir a supplemental awee!llent use of W'Y Procluct iS
governed by tho Use Rights specific to each f't'\)(lclr.t snd IJet»ion ;~nd by th•) terms of tt1e
applicable supplementill agreenient
b. r:ixes. Ear:ll Ft>: 1s licens,~d uncler tile s:,lrne tenns <~s t11e Procluct to Wlllchtl applies If El Ftx I!';
rtot provided for n ~pecific Prodlict. anvuse rigl1t~• Microsoft piO'IicJes wtlll 1111? 1-ix will 8pply
c. Non-IVIicrosofl softwnrG nncf tecllnolouy. Enrollee! Alfiltalto: ,., solely r.ospons1hlf' fnt ~my nOll·
Mtcrosort software o• lecllnolo\)y 111111 il installs or uses willl tile Prod\lcls or f'ixes
r1itqc-r; t'' i 1
f)i'•(lln,t?nl .. <20 ll~tO~l
E-21
d. Roslrictiom;. Enrolle<.! /\flihate rnu::;t 11nt (<111d IS 1101 lice•1$t:d to) <,I) revers•2 engrneer.
decon1pile, 01 firS(ls:;;emble any' Proclucl or Fix (2) install or use non-1v'licro~ofl &oftware nr
lcciH1olo~JY 1n any way that would s~1bject r~licrosott's rntelleclunl prop8rl)' 01 techrlOiO~JY to <Hl:f
other licem;e terms. or (3r wc)rk <~round ;_1ny tC'dllliC<) hm.lations 1n a Product Of Fix or
restrictrons in Procluct documentation. Cuslc•mer must not !and is not licensecllo1 () separ<lle
i'lncl urn pads nf a Product or Frx on mon: than one d;;:vrce, up~Jfi'lde or ctowngmde parts ol "
Procluct or Fr:< at clifiercnlltnH'.'5. or tf8'1sfer p.Jrt5 of u Pro(1uct or Fix sep::H<I\ely: Of (ii) distrrbute.
sublrc•':nse. n;,nt, IC~£1'>8, lend any Producls or F1xes 111 wllole nr 111 pArt, or liSP. ll;em to offe>r
110Siir1~1 $f.'fV!CP.:'; (0 i:l II tif(\f'Miy;
e. Reservfltion of rights. Proclu·~'ts and Frxes <W:! pro\cclecJ by copyri91ll <"'HI olller intellectual
property nghls taws ancl llllernational treatres. Microsoft rese1ves all ri9hls not expre>sly
~Jr<mted rn t11is agreement No rigt1ts writ be !JIFHl\ed or 11Pplil')(l by Vt<;iver or estoppel Rigl1ts
to access or ust~ SoflvJare on a cle 1N:e clo not qiv8 Customer any riqhl to implement h•licrosoft
j)~Jtent~l Ill' O\ltP.I Mit:w~;ofl inlell0ctuat Jli(JPillty' in tf)e dfcVIC0 itself or 111 iH11' Olller software ()I
devrces
8. Confidentiality.
"Colltrden!rallnformahon'' is non-pubhc. information tl1at is designated 'conlirJential' or t11a\ a reilsonahle
J}Otson should under·stand ~~ wnfltl(~r1tl<:~l. II'H.!Iudllrg Customer 0:1ta ConfJdenliallllformation cloes not
Jllclude inforonaliOil thai (<l) 1Jeco111es publicly aVclll<lble without n breach of lhrt; <rgreerrrent, (ll) the
receivrng pail\' !'ecelvecllawtully from anoltler source witllOul a confidenlialily obtlgal,on (C) is
indet>en1lenlly (ieveloped, or ((IJ is n commenltx wggest1on voJ..rnleered about the ot11er party's
\)usiness products or s0rvrces i
I
E.1ch p;;u1y wdltake reasonahle steps to wotect tile other's Conficlentiatlnforlllalion a11d will use the other
r><Ht/s Coniidentl<lllnformation only for t>urpose~; nlthe parties· llusrness relationsl1ip Neilt1er party will
disclose that Confu:tenliallnforrn<~tron lo third rartre:; exceptio its ernployr:c!;, Affrlrales. 0)1\lraclors.
a<Jvisurs and consLJilants rt~epresentatives") and then only 011 ;:r neecl-to-l1now basis under nondiscloslrre
ohlrgr;trons alle<J5l a;, r)rotective as tlw; <JS)<'eemf:nt Eaeh party remains responsible for tire use of 111<3
Confidentia' lnfQIIll8tion by its Rep~<3sentaliv•->'S clnrl, rn llle even! of discovery or C~ny rrrrautllo1i;:ec! ust-e ::.r
ctist:losurt:. IHUSI promptly notrfy the ot11er party
A J.lclrty m<Jy drsclo3c the other's Confidenli<JIInform;1lron rf requue(J 1J1' law, but only alter 11 nolrfres the
•)\JJGr partv (if lf.l~JiliiY permissiblo) to cnablf.' tile olllP.r pmly to 50el\ <1 protectrve order
f\Je1ther p3rly 1s mqu re<l to reslnct wort( assignments of its Repwsent<Jiives who have 11ad ilccess to
Co·lfiiiC<ntiallrlfOr~W>tir,n Each party agte.:s lila\ the use of informal ron retarner.l in Repl'esentatives'
unaidr:!d memories in tile development or deployrn.;;nt of the f)2!r\ies' re~pec;live J)I'Oducts {)I sen;rces dnes
not creal·~ liallility under this Agreement or trade secrella·:.•. and each party aqreec• to lrrnit what it
discloses to tile ott1er accorclingl'/
Tl>ese obligation"> aprty (r) f0r C1rstomPr Dbt<J urrtrl rl is d("telecl from llle Online Services. and (ii) tor all
other Confldenli<rt lnformal1on. for a pGriml ol live years after a piHiy receives tile Confidenliallnform;llion
I
9. Privacy ancl compliance witlllaws.
i\. Enrolled 1\lfrlr::>te consents to till~ processmg or personal information oy fVlicrosort ami 1ls agents
to facilitate 1he subject matter 'of lhrs Agrc;;rnenl Enrollerl 1\flilrat•'! ·.•nll Olllair1 all rt:qurre<l
consrmls from tl1ir<l parties under applicable privacy and data protection law before provrding
personal1niormrJtron to !•;licrosofl
b. Person Oil inform<:11ion collected unclt?r lhr~· agr ee1n~nl (I) rnay lle tnmsterfed, siNt!Cl and
f-11 ocessed in the Unilecl States or any other G0\111lr y 111 wl1icl> Microsoft or its SGivlce provi<l01 s
rndintain fat:ilJties and (i1) •Nill be subject ICl lhe plivacy terms specrtied rn the Use Rinhts
Microsoft wilt abiclc by t11e requnement~; of E'urOJHO:·<lll Economic Area and Swiss data protection
1:'1.:-HJ~ 7 f.t I I
f>f1u u11e;1f :'21)-1(1?-0D
E-22
1aw regarcl!n~J t11e collection, use t, ansler, retention. ami ctt1RI pi!Xt}SSII\9 of pe1sonJI rial a
f101r1 111e European EcoJIIHT11C 1\r11CJ and S•llill<·'lf!HJrl.
I
e. U.S. exnort. Products and Fixes 0r0 subject to U S. e·<porl jdris<l'ction. t.:nrolled 1\ffJilale nl!lst
comply With all applicable mternGI!Oi'ill all{! natl:111ill laws. lnCiiirJin[l llle U.S l:xport
/\dilllflistraiiOil Reyublions <Jnr1.1nlernnliorwl TraH1c 111 /\1•ns Reuulat1onr;. <Jnd end-user, erHI
use and destination restrictions JSSL•EKI b'i U S. and otllE:r ~tover n'nenls rel<11ed to fv1icrosoft
products. servict::s and tecl1r1ologies.
10. Warranties.
fl Limited W<lfranties and rernedies.
(i) Soflwam. fVlJcrosoft warrants that each V01SI01i of tlw Software Will perform suhstantJatly
as clesc.ribect 111 ll1e npplicabla Protluct <loc:,_mK:nlall•Jn lor ono ye-:11 fron1 l11e da\1'~ the
Enterprise is f•rst l•cense<l 'for that version If it does not <lnd the E.nterpr:se notifies
Mtcrosofl w1thrn the warranty term. lllf!n Microsofl wrll at 1ts option (I) 1 eturn t11e pflce
l~wolleclt\ftlhate tlillti for tile Soft•.vare licten&e. or (2) rep;:w or repl.:tce th;: Soflw,JI e
(Ji) Online Services r·.·11crosoll warrants t11at eac11 Qpline Serv1ce will periorm in accordance
witt1 tile appiiC;;JbiP. SLA cturing the Entetpri~e·s use. Tile Enl<!r~.>ri~e's ren1edies fc11 bre<~cll
of th1s wilrranty aw In tile SLA
Tile 18111edies above are the Ente,·prise·~ sule 1emedie5 lo• breact1 of the warranties ir1 IIIJS
secl1on Customer w:Jives any l.llt:a,~h of warranty claims not m<:1cle dunng the warr c111ty p~riod
b. r:xclusions. The warrilrotJes i'l this agreem0nt clo not <:Jjlply to probl01ns causvd by <JCCid·~nt.
ahL1Se, or use 111 8 manner inconsistent witll this Agreen1ent. inclucllng failure to meel mi,1ii11Llr11
syste•n requirt~ments T11e~;e 'warr<1ntie~ <kJ not npply to free, trial. pre-relea~e. or l>etii
pu)Chrcts. or lo r:on1ponenl':; of Products lila\ Enrolle<! Affiliate is permiltecl to rechstributr~.
c. Disctnimer. ExcHpt lor tlH! 'iimltecl warranties atwve, Microsoft provides no otlrer
wnrranlies or conditions add disclaims any other express, implied, or statUIClf'y
W<Jrr<HJtiHs, incill<1ing wmrnnlir~s of IJllillity. title, non-infringement, rnerclwntaliili\y, illld
fitness for a particular purpose.
11. Defense of tl1ird party claims.
Tl11.~ partres will defend each otller 3hJalllsllhe llmcl-party ctaum·. <lescribed in this secllon and wrll pay the
c:m10unt of nny re511ll1ng <Jdvcr!'e final JUdgrrif:nl or ElfJJliOVf.d sett1en1ent. but only 1f the rlf.:fending pmly is
promptly 11otified in •,witin(J of tlte claim e111d ltE1S the ri9ht to control the defense and any settl~?ln,~nt of it. The
part'/ being defencled must provtde the defending pGrty wiH1 oil requestecl 8Ssistilnce. JnforrnatJon. and
authority. Tlw ddencilng party wrll reirnbur::;e lhf,! olller pwty for re<Jsonable out-of-rocket expenSe$ 1t 1ncur?.
rn p1 ovirJi11~1 a~sislance This Sf.JCIIOil describes the parties' sole remedies and e111ire liabilit'l for such claillls
I
n. By Microsoft. l'v11crosott Will defend Enrolled /\lhliale agamst any tllrrd-party cl.:11m to tile extent
•t alleges tli;;ll 8 Product or F1x made available by Mir:ro~oft for a fee <.'ln<l tl:>etl with1f\ t11e ~cop<~
of the license grBnted (unmodifierl from the forn1 provided by M1cros.aft ancl not con1b1ned with
<11lyliliii!-J else) tt11sappropriales ;:;. lracle secret 01 di1ectly infrmges a patent, copy1ight,
trClrlr:,rrL'lrk or other propric:lary right Qf a lhrrd rarty. If M1crosoft rs \lnable to resolve a cla11n of
111flrngerPe11t unde1 commerci8lly reasonable term!l. it rnay. at rls opt1or1, either (I) modify or
rep1<1ce t1·11,:: Product 01 F~:, W1lll 3 runctJon<JI hltllvalcnt, or r,2) termrnate Enrolled 1\lflllate's
Fcense ancl refund any pr0p<1id license fees fie:;.:; deprecrCttion on 8 f,ve-ye<n, strarghl-line
basis) for perpetual licenses anll any amount paid for Online Services for any usage perroll
alief the term in at Jon dRte M1crosort will not be liable for 811Y claims or damages due lo Enrolle,:!
Affrliate's contmued use of a Product or F1x after be inn nolifted to slop clue to i:l thircl-patty r.l<~im
I> By Enrollecl Affil intc:. To the extent pern1ilied by applicable law, Enrollecl Affilic:~te '.'iillt1efend
~llic10sofl against any lllird-p;-uty c!a111, to 111e extent it aile yes 11181 ( 1) any Cust0m.cr Data 01
I
l'::lq~ !l Qf I I
[I£J(lln1Cfll X21) il)21jcl
E-23
12.
nord•;lruu~~oft softwarE:-lro:>ted tr1 an Online S<?rvrct? by fVlicrosoft on Eorolle(l 1\lfilrato':, !Jeh<Jif
rnis8pproprr;:~tr~s <I tr8Cic secrt>t or (hrectly inlrinue~ a patent. cnpyri9IH, ll'a(lf:'fll.'HII, or oiiH~r
Dmprretary nght of a t1111d party. or (2) Enrolled Aff>lrntc s usc-of l'!r\y PlOd\ rei or Fi:o:. ato11e or in
'~0"1lm<rliorr \'111!1 <111ylhiny ets;;,, Vio\ateo; tl're li'l','l or rtarnag•'"S i-1 ll1ird (larly
Limitation of liability. I
f-•)1 e<tc:l1 Pwducl. each patty's m;rxrmum, <:rgqregBii:J liabrlrly to the ol11e:r u11der thi•) II~Jr?.enrelllls l:r11it2d
to tlirer~llf;)lll<llol8S finally awardc!d !1'1 (Ill amount not to e>cer~cl lilt: amounts Enrolled Aff1liate wa~; required
to p<ry for t11r,1 i1pplir:<lble Pro(l\rc.t!l cluriny lir•;1ter111 of this Agr~~~-~mrnl, S\illj!'!LI ta ttw follow1ng
a. Online Services. Por Online Services. Mrcrosoft's max1rnum li<rbilily to Enrolle<ll\flrir<lle for
arry uv:iderrl givrng rr~r: tc a clani1 will not e:•ceecJ tile amount Enwllecl Affr'iRte paicllor til·~
Onri11a Service during the 12 months /)efore the i1V;1clent
b. Free Products and Distnhutal}tc Code, For l~rodcrcls proviclecl free of cilarge ancl cod·~
lllat Enrolled Affilii'ltt-: is author i<!ed toredrstnllule lo th1rd parties w1llwut separate payment to
lv1rcr osofl Misrosoft's llaiJil1ty IS limited lo direct d<lllW9•oS fi11;1lly <lW,Irded up to USS5,000.
c Exclusions. In no event will eithl?r parly be liable lor rnclirecl, inciclental. spec18l. punrtive. or
consequcnllill d<Jma~JeS, or for loss of 11se, loss of lHrsrrH~ss 1nfonnatron. Joss of revenue. or
rnterrupt•on of business, howev~r cmrsecl or on any theoty of liability
d. E11Coptions. No lirlli1:3lion or e:<clusrons wrll apply to tiab11ity arising out of either party's (I)
confidenlialrly obligntronG (except for nil lrOb1l1lY related to Customer Dala. w11rcll w111 r·~mairr
subJeCI to the limitatrons ilncl e>:dusrons ilbove), (21 ddt>nse; obligations, or\ 1) violation of lite
otilet party's intellectual properly rights
13. Verifying compliance.
;1. l"iglll to verify compliance. Enrolled 1\ftilratc must keep recorcts rE·Immg to all use and
distribution of Products IJi' Enr oiled 1\ffrliate nnd tl~; i\ffrhates MICftlSOft hm; the rrght. Clt lis
e~pens•?. to t11c extent permillecl by applicallle lciW. to IJ&rify cornpli.Jnr::e witt1 l11e Product's
licen5e term•; Enrolled flffrliaie must prornptly pr ov1cte: tl1f~ 11Hiepend''~l11 rllrfiiiCll ·w1llr ;my
infornl<llion t11e Erud1tor reasonably requests in furttleranc:.:: of tllH verrlication. iqc:uding access
to syslems running the Products ancl evidence of Licenses for Products Enrnllcd Aff1livle lto:.ts.
suhlicen~;es. or rl1stributes to th'1rd parties Enrolled Affrliate Rgrees to c0•11pletD M1crosoft'c,
self auc111 process, vvhich Microsoft may requrre as nn <tllelmrlove to a thrrrJ J..>i:lrty audit
I
tl Rernedles for non-colllpliance. If V•?rific8tion or self-a\.tdit revr~alt> <~ny t.rnltr.:ensed 11se or
drslrihulion. tlrc11 w1lhin 30 doys', ('I) Enroll0d Aflilrate must order sufficient Licenses to cover
lllalus•3 or cl1strihution, a'ld (2) if unlrcem;ed 11se or-lirSIIIt)ution is 5'-\1, or more. Enrolled J\ffrliate
must reirnl)urse Microsoft for tl1e cost IVlrcrosofl has rncurrecl in verification and acquire the
necessnry clddilional licenses at ·t25''l'o of 111E price l.•asect on tllf? lhen·CLrrrent price list ;;H1d
Enrolled Affiliate nrice level Th& unt:censed 11se percentage rs based on tt1.:: total n1.1mber of
lrcenses purcl1ased compared to actu<~l install base rf lhr::re 15 no tJfliLCe115Pd usc>. M1crosoft wrll
not subject Enrolled 1\ffilrate to :;1nOtl1er verifrcation for at least 0118 year By exercising the
1 i!JIIts and pmet3clures de set ibed above. Micr0s1Jfl rloes not WiliVte il~• rrghls to entorce lh is
flgr"eemt'H1t or to pr·otect rts intell~ctual properly l)y any o111er n1eans rerrn1tted by law.
c Verificntion process. lvhcrosoft Will notify Enrollecl Alfilrate at le<lsl 30 days 111 8dvance of its
intent to ve11fy Enmlled Affrlrate s c•Jmplian<:e with the license terms for lhE Pro<lutts En• oiled
flffiliaw a11d rtf, Arflliates use or distribute Mruosoft will engage <m 1nclependent aurl tor. wtriGii
will bo ~ubjcct to .01 confi<lr:;,\liatrty obligation Any h1forrnal1on collected ill lhe self-audit writ b8
usGd solely for Pli'PC>Se5 of cletermining compliance Tl11s v.;rif1catiorr will !<:11\e pklce duling
11<\rm::rl l't\l.siness hours and in ~ manner that cloes not int.:;rtcrc unreilsonahly wit11 E111 oll!'d
Nfiliate s or)er;:Jtloll(;
P;.lqH fl (II II
n~:l,lilllent X>o-1 n:Jnq
E-24
14. fV/isceJ/aneous.
a Use of coqtractors ~llicr·nf.ufl ri1;1\· use r;orlir<v:tors (t"l p9rform sr?IVIC'!S, !Jut wrl' be responsrllh2
for th.;rr reriornwnce subj•3ct 10 1t1e terms of thrs 1\greon1r::n!
IJ. Microsoft ~rs inrlependcnt c:olltr;u;tof'. The p<Jrtrc\; <•re rndcpend•::nt contractors t:nroll•3ci
1\ffilr;J(e anrl Microsoft •J8Gt1 111<1'/ de'.'8lop products indfJI)811d(!iltly WltiJOUt usrno (118 other's
Confidt"nlial lnforrnalicw
c. Notices Nollc<S!S to MH:rosortmLst be sent to tho mldross on the srnnature forrrr Notrees must
be in wrrling and will be lreatecl as (lt?liverect on the elate 51iown on tile returl\ recerpt or on u·re
courier or lax contnmation ol delivery. r·.•lrcrosoft rr~:'ry provrtle rnfornwtror1 to Enrolled Alfrlra\v
C~\Jorl1lrpc'>01111Q ordering deadlines. services, and subscnption infor:n8tion tn eleGtiOrl:c form.
including bv en1ail to conl<tcl£, pru.Jicted by Enrolle<! 1\ffrli<il•.c En1a1l:. willlle treated 3~; delilft'rt>d
011 !11e lransi111S5rc)n tlntr;.
rl. Agreement not P.Xclusivr~. Cu~.t'Jnwr is free to enter i'ltn a~:reemenls to licer1s8. use or
pro111ote non-lvlicrosoft products;
e Arnendments Any ilrnenrlmer1t lo thrs Anreernent rnust b•2 executecllly IXltl1 t)arlies. e~cer:-t
tlwt Microsoft me1y ch<H1ge the Pro<iucl Terms ancl llle Use Rrghts f1011r tune to trme in
accordance witn tile tenns of tills f\greement Ant conflictr11g terms <Jnci comlitrons contarnecl
in an Enrollee! 1\ffrli;:llt:'s ptrrch8se orck-r will not apply. Microsoft metv nqurre Customer to s•gn
a nc'.'l agreorrenl or an arncnc1111'ent betote an Enrollecl Affrliate enters into an E111ollrnenl und-:.,r
this ac)let'>lllent
f. Asslunment Eit1121 party 111ay asSI!Jrt this A(Jrt:•emenl to an Affiliate, IJut tllust r'otily tt1e olh9r
party in writing of the as~ign·nehl Any other proposed assinnment rnust be; approvP.d tly 111<3
non-assrnnin~l pitr1y rn writing /\ss;ignnwnt wilt rro\ rt'lieve tire assigning part\' of rt:; ot)lil)atrons
rrnder tile <Js·;igncd <rgrccrn(,rt\ r\ny alternptert assi~rnment will1out requrrecl approval will lle
\jl)!ij
q. 1\pplic.<~IJio taw: disp11le resolitt!OI\. Th'" \I'O!rlls of tlirs Astreemc~nt 111ill be govert\C:d I'Y th,:;
taws of Customhr's til <'lie. witlto1tl Diving ~ffe<;l to 115 conflrct of I8Ws. Disput~:•s r<,,lating to t111s
Aweerrt<·l!ll writ b~o~ !;r.rbjevttu vPJ~Iic.:rbte disputr~ r·esolutiorr taws of Custort\er's state
h. Scvcrnbilily. If <rl1'/ provrsion inrii11S agreern8nl isllel(llo lJC' Ullf!llforce;>bl0, tlw lwlr.tnCt:' of liK~
i19f<!t'lr!t~l11 Will ff:m<Jill 111 full for~•? clnd ~fk;ct
i.
j
k
I.
WaiVI!I. fC~il\ln: to enforce c:rny' provision of t11is aqreernent will not conslrlute a warver. Ar1v
W8rv8r must bG rn wntmg and signe(l I)'JIIle wa:vrng-~arty. .
No lltlrd-p;uty benefi<~larlr~s ·TI)i~ Agree•nent <loe;; nnt create .;~ny tltrrd-party br:11efrr:iary
right;; '
surv1vat. /\1: provrsrons surviva tenrrtnatron or exprratron r)f 1t1rs 1\vrr,t-:ment except IIHJoe
requrring perfom1ance only dwing tire ler111 of the l\greerner1l
Man<1gomcnt 0nd Raf)ortln~J. Cusrorner 8nrllor Enrolled Affilr<:~te nwy manag<3 account clotilrls
(e.g .. contacts orclers. Licenses, soflware downlorvl!>) on Mrr.rosotl's Volume Lrc:ensrrrg
SHvrce Center (VLSC") web ilrtc (or succef_;sor site} ill
b!!.t!? llwww __ [!glO~Q~I.J~.9!l1Dr.q>)l~~l!1fSef\l_rCE"~!''nt~ Upon lhe effecti,;e clRit-} of lhrs A(Jieement
anti any Enrollments. lite contact{sl identif1ecl fm lhll; purpo<;e wrll be provicieci DCCP.8::. to this
sHe and may ;1uH1nrize :Jci<lttronnlusers and contacts.
m. Order of precec!ence In the case of a conflr-::il)etweerr any clocurnents rn II .rs Agreeme>1t lila\
IS not expressly r•,sotvecltn those docum·:>nts. ltleir terrns will control in the followrng order from
highest to lowest priority (I) this Enterprise Agmem12nt. i<'l cmy Enrollrnent. (3) the Proclucl
Terms, (rl) the On linG ~~ervices Terms. (5) Of(lers subr11illed und•'>f liltS ;\grecmenl, and (6) arry
ollwr documents 111 t111s t,flleement T!~rm.~ 111 \111 <ilnerrdrnellt tuntrol over tlu~ amendf'd
document etncl any prior am~ll!lrnent!> conr::errtlf1[) the se1rne sr.rhtect tn<JIIer
P .. wr: lf'l of 11
L•••ct.rn•;nl 1.21) ro;wJ
E-25
11. l:mH Products. It rs tv\iL·rosoft's intent !IIa\tlvt !'>!I IllS ol !Ins Aqreorn<:ml d~td ltw lhe H1ql1ts I.H':
rn complranct'i wrtl·r all appltcaoie led·~ral law ancl regJI<llion~ 1\n;' free Procluct provided t•J
Er'rolled Affrlrille is f(" IlK: sole ttSI" ancJ berwfit of the Enrolled Artili;:,tce, an(! is '101 provided lot
use by or person<II bs·nef,t of an\' &pr~ciftc 90v8rrw1ent empkJyee
I
o. Vnlunlnry Producl/\ccP.ssibilit.y femplate8. Mtcrtlsofl supports t11e 90Vr!1 nm<ent's obligBtion
to pmvi<le i.lGcessil)l~; lcdlnolovw:•; In 1(~ cittzen!; wrtli \i.~;abili\tt~, (l(; 'equirecf by Sr!cliun 50fl of
lhe l<ehC!IJilitatron Act c.f 197:\. Rnd its stale lnw counterpClrts The Voluntary Product
fl·~ce~;.thiltty TeliiJ!I;.;tes ('1/PAI~") k.>t th0 Mrcrosort tE;!r)lll<)lo~p,:~ used i11 provrding t11e 011lrnr:!
Selvlces ca11 be found at fv1tcrosnft's VP/\T p<If]e. Fwther infor matio'l ""9ilfdtng fv1tU<,J:<;(IIl'B
U.Hl1111iliTieitl to accessitJtftly can IJ•~ fow1r.l at !.lllf!JC'!'~J!lif!.osoil:.fQill!~L~
p. Natural dis<Jst~r. 111 lire f:vcnt of '' "n<.liU!dl rhsilst<:r," Microsoft may !)ro•:rclc! mJclrtiort[11
assistar1ce or rigllts b'l posling t'I\1'~111 on .l1.lJJY:'i'"i.:·YYUnicrost:•ft cc•m at sl!,~h time
q. Copyriollt violation. Except c1S set tortl1 in tilt" st~ctron above entitiGd Transfetdn~t ami
rC"·'l!'<Sigrting Licenses'', tho Enrolled J\ffrlr<tte a~Jrees lo pa-y f0r and comply with the te11l1s of llw;
Agreement 811cl th•J Use Rig Ills. ·for tl1e Products it usGs E•:r:epl to tim extent E:r11olleci Affiliatc7
'" lken~rHI undr;r ll11s f\OI<'Oen1f:nl. it will be responsrllle for ils breach of this conltact ancJ
viol<l\1011 of Mtcrosofl's copy111{1ll inlhc Product~. includllt!J payment of Licen:>e fc;e:; speufiecl
111 1111s Aureenwnt fco~· 1rnliceoge,J use
I
(.iilq.:· 11 of 11
p,.,_~u'''~~~~ x~~a.IC1 :!Im
E-26
8 'IVIir:rnsoft Vcdurne l.ic:<-~llSill~J
Supplernental Contact lnforrnation Forrn
I
--~-·-·-··----------····· -------~-------------. ------·-----·----------------------
Tl11s form C£111 11e used •n comi)lllPllio~l with ~·H3Sf\, /\9re:ement. and r:nrollrnentine!]lstraltOII
However. n s.:q)arilte iorm must IJ,; sut)nlltted for ench 0nrollrnenttrcctislml10n. when r~1o10 than o1te io.
suiJmitterJ on a si~Jilctlllre form For 111e l)urposes ot t11is forrn, ·entity'' c<H1 mean the signing enltty.
Cust(lrner, E111otle<J 1\fflh<itto:, r-:;r;V(!IIHnenl Pdl'liWr, ltl;-,ltllllion u1 (;.!her party enlerHI(J 1nlo 8 volu111e
licensin9 pro£Jr<im aweemenl Primary 81;<1 No11ces contacts 1n this form will not apply to enrollments
1 e9istr al1ons
-·-·-· --···--------------····-·-----·-·····----, ------·-··-----
Tr1is fo1m applies \i). CJ MBS/1
l~l Aorcernc::nl
I
[] Enrollment/1\fflli<ll.?. l'(t:915\rclllon Form
l11s•"rl pr>rnar•J (',nlll'/IFIIlJ(! if more tlwn on;:; r:nroiiiHCIJt/1~8\JISir<!liCF\
Form is submitted
Contact information.
E<lc;h pi.Hty v..-ill notify lhe olll81 in writinq if ;:1ny of lllC:< infolln::ltior-, in tho followino coni<:Jcl rnfolltWlion
pa~te(SJ clwnges Tlw asterisks i ') llldlcnte required flel(Js: 11 t11e enUl)• chooses to clf.lsig1wte otlw:
contact types, tile SC\Illf) n~qu1r10d f1eld~; lrl\Jsl tx~ co1i1ple!ed fo1 ea.;l1 seclion. By provKimq contact
lnform<~lion, entity consents to its use k;r rurpo~.es of administering the Enrollment by Microsoft and otller
padies I hat help ·MICrosoft aclmmish''l li11s Eni!Jll!llent Tlw persom1l inlormat1on prOVIded in connection
INilh lilts 3pree111ent will he I! Sed ;jtld p1oiH lt>d :-v:r:nrdiliSl to the prtvacj slol~lll)(:nt available Ed
t_.,t_t,)_S _ _:.]l·~·~ll?_i_l_!il _1_!_1_t~:r.():,'2U. o.::n 1.
1. Additional notices contact.
'!"his contncl rece1ves all not1ces l.llHl .31e r,e,Jt from Microsoft No onlin,:. a•:cess 1s SJf:lnt(·d to lh,•;
lnclivlclual.
Nanw of entity' County of RIV<'i':"'lde i
Con tad mune': First l~egi11a L<1Sl F tlnd•2.11Jurk
Contact email address• RFuncletburk@nvco 019
Street ilddr<Js~· 3450 14th Street, 4th Floor;
City• l~iverside Sli.1lo1Province• Caliror11i<:1 'Post~1l co<l·~· 9250 t<WG I
COlllllr'J• USA
Phone' 951·955-2265 Fax
[] T11is contact is a tlwcJ party (nol t11e entity) IN<~rnin(l Tll1s cont<~cl receives personally KlentifiCJblc-
informaiiOJ1 or the ent11y
2. Software Assurance manager.
H1is r:onlar;t will mceivc online pL'rnw:;sior>s to l'lC:lfl<lge litP. Software /\'-Sill iii'Cf; br:lneflts 1111cle> IIW·
EI'IOIII11f'lll or Reg1stration
Name of entity' County of R1vorsrchc
Contact nmne': First r\,~glf1<l I. <lsi F unrle~rburk
Contact email 8Cidress' Hl=unclerburh@rivco orq
Street address' 31150 I •ltl1 Stre8t •ltl1 r-loor.
City' f\iversicle St<llciProvillce' C31ifomta 'Postal code' 92!)0 1 386 I
I
E-27
Country' USA
Phono' 951·9~·'J-2265 Fax
[J This contact •S a ttwcl parl•f (nolllie eniilYJ VVi\rl\1!19 This contad receives person<llly identifiable
infoirn<:llion or tl•e ent•l•t
3. Subscriptions manager.
Tl11s contact will ass1gn MSDN [~pression. and ·r ecilNet Plus subsc ipliOn licenses to the indivlcli.tar
sullSCf•llers unc!er tllis Enrollment or Regrr;lration Assr~nmwnt of thE) suhsc!lpl10n lio~nses ts riteC•~ssary
for <rcces~ lQ <tny of the online hendrts. such as subscription downloads. This cont<Jct will al~o rnan<Jge
any complirnentary or acl<litional media purchases relilted to tlwse sut)S•~iiplions
Nnme or entity• County of l~iVEHSide
Contact name: First RegrrJ<'l Last Funrterh111k
Corrtnct email address' Rl-linderbcllh@llvco.or<.l
Street address• 3450 14th Str"eet, 4111 r=toor
City' R1verside StatuiProvincr~· C;JirforfliEJ F'ostal code' 92501-3861
Country• US/\
Plwne' 951-%5-2265 Fax
0 T11is contact is R third party (not lht.· •?lll•tyl VVmninu Tills <:ont<Jct receiVe!J person8lly ic!enlifi.:Ji)IE:
lllformatrcH1 of tl1e enuty
4. Online services manager.
Tlii!i i:OI•I<1l:l will be provided c•nlm•~ per11w;sior~o. lo nWfl(ltJt:' the fmline ~P.iViC<O'> orde<"ed unde• til<;
Enrollment or l~e~]istra\ion
Name of entity' COLJ11IY or Rrverc,idc~
Contact name': First Luis Last flo res
Contact email address' LFr=tore;;@rivco or9
Street addn~ss• ::ll\'5(1 ·t,llh Stmet, 4th Flnor
Cily' Rivcrs;cle State/Province' Califofl118 Postnl code' ~!( ~JO 1-3(\G·t
Country' USA
Phone' 951·%5-8114 Fil)<
0 This contact is a ttwd party (1101 the entily). vvaming Tt;is contact re.~ei'·ieS ~"?iSUilally ider!llfiilble
information of lh•:; entity
5. Customer Support Manager (CSIVI).
Tlus person IS desi9n<1ted as tl1e Custo.-ner support MC111ager (CSf\·1) for suppori-retalecl activilies
Name of elltiLy' County of l=<•verstde
Contilct name': First Luis Last Flo··es
Contact email atlclress' LFFiores@nvco org
Street i:tddross' 31\50 ·14th Street. 41h Floc1r
City' R1Ver~.irle Stille/Provinco' Cillifomra Post ill code' 9250 t ·38G I
Country' USA
Phone' 951·955-8114 Fax
6. Primary contact information.
An inclivichial fi 0111 rnsicl'.:! lh8 orrJanization nrusl se1 VI? as II'"' primr.ll y corM1cl. H1is contact 1 eccives onlino:
administrator permiSsions an'l may grant onl1ne access to oth.,is. This co•llact also •eceives all notice:;
unless Microsoft is rrovided wntlen notice nf a change.
NilrnP of nntity' County or F\iversicle
;;l!J"C')f Jldl.llttluF t>lftl(IJf~.1: .JJ)ti~NI.'-,)lU~!~(l l ·~)
E-28
Contact narne·: Frrsl Jun Last Sn11th
Cont<tct em<~ II <Jddross' pm:;mitll@rrv<;o;J.Gr:J
Street address· 3~50 1'lth Street. •Hh Floor
City• RIVefside State/Province• CA Post <II code' 92'>0 1·38<3 I
Country' US
Phone' 951-23 1·S909 Fax
7. Notices contact and online administrator information.
This irrd1v1rJu:rl 1ece1Vet; onlin0 wlnunistr;Jtor permi~;t;.OIIt; (cllid 111:1y gr;111t nnlrne ar.ce~;~ to ott1ers This
cont<ICI also receives all notices
1Zl Snnrt? m flU/lUll}' r.nn/m:l
N ante of entity'
Cont<tcl ll<Hne'· First L<~st
Contacl!llnaii<JcJdress'
Street <~ddress'
City' StateiProvinct-' Postal co<le'
Country•
Phone' Fax
[] T111s cont,:rcl is a thud party lnol 111e entli)'l 'iVarnH19 Th1s contact rece,ves pcrson<llly ic:entifi<Jllle
lnfor,nation of lhe ent1ly
E-29
Microsoft Document Headersheet
MSE#:
(MSLI
Tracking
Number)
Doc Type:
L __ _
• This is for informational purposes only '
5-0000004275258
Amendments
Do not modify the formatting or spacing of this Form above tllis text
Subsidiary_~
Country· United States
LAR/LAD/ESA
Insight Direct USA, Inc.
Proqram/Versior).
EA 6 2016
ACCOUNT: County of Riverside
Outsourcer Name:
Business Agreement Number
Master Agreement Number: 8084445
Agreement Number
Purchase Order Number.
Comments:
---------~---------------·--------
Account Manager Name I Alias:
(Scanning Code)
8/23/2019 9:42:40 PM
·----1
I
E-30
\/ u I\ 11 '1 C:! L 1 c c:· 1 ·1 ':· 111 CJ
Amendment to Contract Documents
l"lll:; HrncnrJmcrrl ('i\r,cndrti'Jil!'') is rJnlered ir•lrr!Jetwol!ll ll1e pu;lre~; rdr!rrtilroed orJilie aHaclierJ fHOqr<Jrn
'3i\111Jllll •:: form It arnerHb lire Er11 Oilllrerll or /ltJreemerol idl-!lllifred .1buve. !\II h~l•ns u~.~rllirrlnol definr-;d
in llli'! A·nend:r1•lnl. will liM•~ lhe si1!1l8 nwanrn;JS prtwio:lo1d in 11\iJt En··oflrn~•nl or i'.\fiCr•nwnt
Enterprise Agreement
Custom Tem1s CTM
S•xlinn (in. "Te:rrn". r:; lwrcby a11wnd·:d ancl rei.lat,?d as follow,,:
il. Tonn. Tl1c term ol Ill is Awoemonl w111 r c:mam in effect tJill :ss ternHnated uy l·illlt::r p;1rly
:.1S tle;,r:llht<d IJP.I(I\'/ Errdo [!lrollrrH"IIl will h;wr~ 111f: 1er111 prnvniP.rl in !hill F.nrnllrnc::l
2 TIW: prrcrn~1 t11,11 Microsofl will uflt::· Enmll1ed 1\frdi;•l<•':; RI!SP.Ii~"' ,.,,. Errrnllinr'"'' <'ff,;cti•F•
hr;tweon illoverpi)Gf 1, 201D lllrOI.I\111 \)c!oi•N ~r1 202·1 .:lf\(1 ll'r<ll will iiPPIV for lh<? illlil'•'l initi<ll
lerrr1 ol 5llf:lt EiHOIItrH!III:;, rs a:; lollnw:;·
Price
Lev PI
!~ntcrprise Pmcluct;> L8V01 D
f-:--:-~---,-,--------·-·-i-c---c-::::-A<Iclition<ll Products L.ev01 D
oroc~ 365--Pio PtL1s. i~\iilld-ows 11J
(nlerprise. Cor~ C/IL !Silile. l.':llterprrs'o!
CAL Surle
M365 F I. 1~1365 E5 Cc,mplt811e>J. M3G5 ES
S~c.11ril'1, Ofiiu: J6S l:ntrorprisr; F I Prnjc(';l
Online. Visio OniH1P. Plan 1 or Pliln ;>
LJynRmir:;s :3o5, .1\;~ure SOL s,31'VIlr.
INrntJows Serv,~r l'IC
lf•1-' c.,. :llll~k·:· n~ehJtl~J u;.htro ~tTvl::l!$ U:·.~t arc ilv:111:1ble :n ·~·itl·~:!r IIV! CCIII'lH::uJit~: •JuVt:..,.,:nr-r,pnt c'm:d r:lfr'?l!rH_;~.
· '(Jo::;l,:'·tinn t:r,i,')tp'i<..r-'l (hl.tl·~ :=,r')l\11\ ~:~; :'F· Vlf.l•hfir•d in II,,• PfOf!lll .. ; ·1 f't ·n~ •JJilllllt"" ':.t:ll vlll\"~ cl 'Ft~l' 111 lht~ ';Jh'·~~· f(.t
'~1 HJU't.HTi :\'li.! Ju:J!hl~,· lltl· 'JC·J~'I.J u! Enlt:tpl•:it• LhJ,,·i~.!' ~;t:l'W.:f~~ ~~ :lt::,j~:..:l tG th:i·.qu ~I'> f::HF'fll;S.n tlriltllf:' ::.>-I'Jif:..-~~:
:ue ,:-,,;de<J \l;)f.'t,tt·,Jirt;'V :.e:l ;::r ·un·,J·,•f;d ffOHI !110 Cnft:fJJr. 4t: P"~9~ ~n1 t::Hcri!l<J
C: 1 lA CP 1 .()p f.F 1h'i( BD
E-31
T.'Jc pric(' li:>llllonlh ltwl appliw; to iH1 orc:er rs nol n f<~ci•Jr in UE:It?llllinlfl[l Wil•~lllo?r lhe
iidd,1iol\dl2% clrsc,~\1111 011 EnleqHise OrilillfJ Ser•11U!~ rnii•/ lie <~PPI1ed 10 ~·liiLHdt:r fill:
onlv C1pp11Gal'il0 br;tor 1~ t11r1 <>lffi•;liw• rlill8 of tr1e L:nroillllenl
rtiP. rl1scount <inf:s 11(1\ <lpply lo ;111\' ex1P.11~1nr's t)f tl>le inilr:-11 T,;,nn or lfJ1W•/1al
f-:nr()lftnr:-nt;:,;
Tl~o:~ dl•;•.:(ltlfrl lim:·; nol ;1pply In nny pruiJir)(IOnal SI(Ur. EIHOIIcrlllffilral•~ •·; 1~111itll'd lo
lh·? lOWE:! Clf the pr·mlnirOI'Ii1l [liiCr; ('I diSC(JI.111lt"d pri'X:
TI1U pnce lcvPilkll applies lo E111ullrnen1,, dff:clive 011 c1 ~1f1U1 f•LlVl7liii.JCI 1. 20~ I 1S Luvl!l 0 lof
Rll Proli!U•~Is
The l{oy;ller itnd 11''" h110llr.:d .Aff,hiile vvlll rlelt.•lmitu~ lhri F:nrt'.lletl iVtllicoi<''S <1CIIJI\I JHiu>. anrl
[J<I'IIlli'll\ h:nnr,.
r=:xc,~pl fo1 ct·1,11'1qes llK1d·c' by liltS /\1/!E!i'illllk'lll, IIH" i:Ju1JI'!11t.>lll 01 A\jiGCIIIEoi\1 ll:lGIHth<•cl abcoo;e [1?11\aPIS
U11C"hil11DW:l ·11111 in !<.1!1 force and effo;r;l If !here is illl)1 C•Jnfhcl bo)li'IPOII 811'1 provrsion ill llliS Alll()Ocilllf'l11
~!11d ;.111',' fJIU'ii!-illllllllilll! E111olln1t."'' ;11 1\tjrf:r~lllf:l\1 irknldl\!rl ;t\JO'If\ thic 1\nwlldl!li;llf ~;hall C<Jfll111l
Microsoft lnt!!mal U~e Onl :
E-32
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE LICENSING SOLUTION PROVIDER AGREEMENT
WITH
Dell Marketing L.P.
Original Contract Term:
Original Contract ID:
Effective Date of Amendment:
Original Annual Maximum Contract Amount:
Amended Annual Maximum Contract Amount:
1 1/0 1/20 19 through I 0/31/2021
PSA-000 1524
04/01/2020
$0
$0
This AMENDMENT NO. I TO THE LICENSING SOLUTION PROVIDER AGREEMENT with
Dell Marketing L.P. ("First Amendment"), dated as of 01 Apri I 2020, is entered into by and between the
County of Riverside ("COUNTY"), a political subdivision of the State of California, and Dell Marketing
L.P. (''CONTRACTOR"), a Texas corporation, sometimes collectively referred to as the "Parties".
RECITALS
WHEREAS, COUNTY and Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") have entered into that certain
Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (Master Agreement No. 8084445; the "Master Agreement"), effective
August 23, 2019, under which COUNTY has the ability to enter into one or more enrollments to order
certain Microsoft product licenses;
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR and COUNTY entered into the aforementioned Licensing Solution
Provider Agreement Number PSA-000 1524 (the "Agreement") to provide support services to COUNTY
and its Enrolled Affiliates (as defined in the Master Agreement) for said licenses; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY and CONTRACTOR now desire to amend the Agreement for the first time
to extend the period of performance of the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the receipt and adequacy of which is
hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
I. The above recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated herein by reference.
2. Section 4 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
"This Agreement shall be effective from November I, 2019 through October 31, 2024, unless
terminated earlier (the "Term")."
3. Section 9 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
"Usage Reporting: CONTRACTOR will provide to COUNTY the Licensed Support Provider
(LSP) Reporting of Active Enrollments to Master Microsoft Enterprise Agreement No. 8084445,
Select Plus Agreement No. 7756479, Microsoft Premier, Unified, and MCS Support services,
showing a list of enrollments by December 15th of each year. Forms shall be submitted
electronically to MasterM icrosoftAdmin@rivco.org. A copy of the form is attached hereto as
Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference."
4. Capitalized Terms/Amendment to Prevail. Unless defined herein or the context requires otherwise,
all capitalized terms herein shall have the meaning defined in the Agreement, as heretofore
I
BOS agenda #3.16 Approved 22 October 2019
Form #116-311 Revision Date: 01/13/2016
RCIT 3450 14'h Street. Riverside. CA 92501
F-1
COUNTY or RIVERSIDE
i\iVIENDiVIENT NO. I TO TI-l E LICENSING SOLUTION PROVIDER AGREUviENT
WITII
Dell Mark e ting L. P.
--
nmcnded. The prov1s1ons or thi s First Amendment :;hall prevail over any incon s istcm:y or
conl'licting provisions nf the Agreement. as heretofore amc1Kkd, and shall supplement the
remaining provisions thereor.
5. iVIiscellnneous. Except as amended or modified herein. all the terms or the Ag reement shall
remain in J'ull force and effect nnd shall apply with the same Ioree and cl'f'ect. Tim e is of the
essence in this rirsl /\mendrm:nl and the Agreement and each and all of their respective
provisions . Sul~ject to the provisions of · the Agreement as to assignment. the agreements.
conditions nnd provisions herein cnntnined shall :1pply to and hind the heir s. executor!;.
adminislrntnrs. successors and nssigns or the pnrtics hereto. 1 f any provisions of this Fir st
Am e ndment or the t\grcemcnt shnll be determined to be illegal or unenrorccabl e. such
det,~rmination s hall not affect an y other provision or the 1\gn:cmcnl and all such other provi~ion:-;
shall remain in full ti1rcc ami effect. Th e l<~nguage in all pans or the Agreement shall he co nstrued
acwrding lo its normal and usual meaning and not strictly li1r or against either COUNT\' or
CONTRACTOR.
<i. ~.:Jii~~_j_iyc Dale. This First Amcndmenl shall nnl be binding or consummated until it s approval hy
the Riverside County lloard ol' Supervisors and f'ully executed by the Parties .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caust:d their duly authorized reprcscntutives
to execute this First Amendment.
COlJNT\' OF RIVIERSWE,ll political
subdivision ~ State orCa 'lbrnia
By: __,., ______ ··"----
Richard R. H:1i
Senior Procurement Contract Specialist
Dated: $2 F/ 2o 2o
1\PPROVED t\S TO FORrvl :
Gregory P. Priamos
::.:l:ltnunscl Qf;_
·-~nnnaOh
Deputy County Counsel
BOS <~uumla /I'J . tCl llpprovud 22 Oclobe• 20 ·10
F01111 111 Hi·311 Hevision Dale : 0111:112016
Dell Marketing L .P .. a Texas corporation
11y:
t\ manda E. Hudson
Conlravfs Mani-\ger
Dated: . ..:f~f>;Y ,_;-~:~;;~,.~@
'1
F-2
1• Microsoft Volume Licensing
Program Signature Form
MBA/MBSA number 5-0000006320817
Agreement number 8084445
Note: Enter the applicable active numbers associated with the documents below . Microsoft requires the
associated active number be indicated here, or listed below as new.
For the purposes of this form, "Customer" can mean the signing entity , Enrolled Affiliate,
Government Partner , Institution, or other party entering into a volume licensing program agreement.
This signature form and all contract documents identified in the table below are entered into between
the Customer and the Microsoft Affiliate signing, as of the effective date identified below.
Contract Document Number or Code
<Choose Agreement> Document Number or Code
<Choose AQreement> Document Number or Code
<Choose Aqreement> Document Number or Code r.
<Choose Agreement> ... ·.,, Document Number or Code ~
<Choose Agreement> .\, Document Number or Code ·,._ .,
Enterprise Enrollment X20-10635 c (
<Choose EnrollmenUReqistration> Document Number or Code .
-:g_h_oose Enrollment/Registration> Document Number or Code
<Choose EnrollmenURegistration> .,, ! Document Number or Code
<Choose EnrollmenURegistration> Document Number or Code
Amendment M97(New)
Amendment W29 (New)
Product Selection Form 1026319.006 (New)
Document Description Document Number or Code
Document Description DocumentNumberorCode
By signing below, Customer and the Microsoft Affiliate agree that both parties (1) have received , read
and understand the above contract documents, including any websites or documents incorporated by
reference and any amendments and (2) agree to be bound by the terms of all such documents .
Customer
Name of Entity (must be legal entity name)* City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Signature*--------------------------------------------------------------
Printed First and Last Name* Ara Mihranian
Printed Title City Manager
Signature Date*
TaxiD
• indicates required field
ProgramSignForm(MSSign)(NA,LatAm)ExBRA,MLI(ENG)(May2020) Page 1 of 2
Document X20-1288t _1
Signature
Printed First and Last Name
Printed Title
Signature Date
(date Microsoft Affiliate countersigns)
Agreement Effective Date
Microsoft Affiliate
Microsoft Corporation
Suzanna Hartman
Authorized Signer
Dec 14,2020
(may be different than Microsoft's signature date)
Optional 2nd Customer signature or Outsourcer signature (if applicable)
Customer
Name of Entity (must be legal entity name)*
Signature* --------------------------------------------------------------
Printed First and Last Name*
Printed Title
Signature Date*
* indicates required field
Outsourcer
Name of Entity (must be legal entity name)*
Signature* -----------------------------------------------------------
Printed First and Last Name*
Printed Title
Signature Date*
* indicates required field
If Customer requires additional contacts or is reporting multiple previous Enrollments, include the
appropriate form(s) with this signature form.
After this signature form is signed by the Customer, send it and the Contract Documents to Customer's
channel partner or Microsoft account manager, who must submit them to the following address. When
the signature form is fully executed by Microsoft, Customer will receive a confirmation copy.
Microsoft Corporation
Dept. 551, Volume Licensing
6880 Sierra Center Parkway
Reno, Nevada 89511
USA
ProgramSignForm(MSSign)(NA,LatAm)ExBRA,MLI(ENG)(May2020) Page 2 of 2
Document X20-1288G-2
1• Microsoft Volume Licensing
Amendment to Contract Documents
Enrollment Numbe r ._! _______ _. 5-0000006320817
This amendment ("Amendment") is entered into between the parties identified on the attached program
signature form. It amends the Enrollment or Agreement identified above . All terms used but not defined
in this Amendment will have the same meanings provided in that Enrollment or Agreement.
Enterprise Enrollment (Indirect)
Invoice for Quoted Price
Amendment 10 M97
The price quoted to Enrolled Affiliate's Reseller is a fixed price based on an estimated order submission
date. Microsoft will invoice Enrolled Affiliate's Reseller based on this fixed price quote . If this order is
submitted later than the estimated order submission date, Enrolled Affiliate's Reseller will be charged
for net new Monthly Subscriptions (including Online Services) for the period during which these services
were not provided . Pricing to Enrolled Affiliate is agreed between Enrolled Affiliate and Enrolled
Affiliate's Reseller.
SKU Number SKU Description Existing Quantity Incremental
quantities
AAD -34700 M365 E3 FromSA GCC Unified 120
ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL
PerUsr
AAD-34704 M365 E3 GCC Unified ShrdSvr 20
ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr
3GU-00001 Defender for 0365 Plan 1 GCC 220
SubVL Per User
MQM -00001 AzureActiveDrctryPremP1 GCC 80
ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL
PerUsr
3NS-00003 ExchgOnlnP2GCC ShrdSvr 80
ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr
Except for changes made by this Amendment, the Enro ll ment or Agreement identified above remains
unchanged and in full force and effect. If there is any conflict between any provision in this Amendment
and any provision in the Enrollment or Agreement identified above, this Amendment shall control.
Am endm entApp v4.0 M97 8
Page 1 of 2
G-3
This Amendment must be attached to a signature form to be valid.
Microsoft Internal Use Only:
(M97)EnrAmend(lnd)(lnvoiceforQuotedPrice)( I I M97
WW)(ENG)(Oct2020)(1U).docx
8
AmendmentApp v4 .0 M97 B
Page 2 of 2
G-4
1• Microsoft
Enterprise Enrollment
Enterprise Enrollment number
(Microsoft to complete)
Previous Enrollment number
(Reseller to complete) 88555859
Vo lume Licensing
State and Local
Framework ID I
(if applica ble) ._ ________ ___.
This Enrollment must be attached to a signature form to be valid.
This Microsoft Enterprise Enrollment is entered into between the entities as identified in the signature form
as of the effective date . Enrolled Affiliate represents and warrants it is the same Customer, or an Affiliate of
the Customer, that entered into the Enterprise Agreement identified on the program signature form .
This Enrollment consists of: (1) these terms and conditions, (2) the terms of the Enterprise Agreement
identified on the signature form , (3) the Product Selection Form, (4) the Product Terms, (5) the Online
Services Terms, (6) any Supplemental Contact Information Form, Previous AgreemenUEnrollment form ,
and other forms that may be required, and (7) any order submitted under this Enrollment. This Enrollment
may only be entered into under a 2011 or later Enterprise Agreement. By entering into this Enrollment,
Enrolled Affiliate agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Enterprise Agreement.
All terms used but not defined are located at http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/contracts . In the event of
any conflict the terms of this Agreement control.
Effective date. If Enrolled Affiliate is renewing Software Assurance or Subscription Licenses from one or
more previous Enrollments or agreements, then the effective date will be the day after the first prior
Enrollment or agreement expires or terminates. If this Enrollment is renewed, the effective date of the
renewal term will be the day after the Expiration Date of the initial term . Otherwise , the effective date will
be the date this Enrollment is accepted by Microsoft. Any reference to "anniversary date" refers to the
anniversary of the effective date of the applicable initial or renewal term for each year this Enrollment is in
effect.
Term. The initial term of this Enrollment will expire on the last day of the month, 36 full calendar months
from the effective date of the initial term. The renewal term will expire 36 full calendar months after the
effective date of the renewal term.
Terms and Conditions
1. Definitions.
Terms used but not defined in this Enrollment will have the definition in the Enterprise Agreement. The
following definitions are used in this Enrollment:
"Additional Product" means any Product identified as such in the Product Terms and chosen by Enrolled
Affiliate under this Enrollment.
"C ommunity" means the community consisting of one or more of the following : (1) a Government, (2) an
Enrolled Affiliate using eligible Government Community Cloud Services to provide solutions to a
Government or a qualified member of the Community, or (3) a Customer with Customer Data that is subject
to Government regulations for which Customer determines and Microsoft agrees that the use of
Government Community Cloud Services is appropriate to meet Customer's regulatory requirements.
EA20201 EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Oct2019) Page 1 of 10
Document X20~625
Membership in the Community is ultimately at Microsoft's discretion, which may vary by Government
Community Cloud Service.
"Enterprise Online Service" means any Online Service designated as an Enterprise Online Service in the
Product Terms and chosen by Enrolled Affiliate under this Enrollment. Enterprise Online Services are
treated as Online Services, except as noted.
"Enterprise Product" means any Desktop Platform Product that Microsoft designates as an Enterprise
Product in the Product Terms and chosen by Enrolled Affiliate under this Enrollment. Enterprise Products
must be licensed for all Qualified Devices and Qualified Users on an Enterprise-wide basis under this
program.
"Expiration Date" means the date upon which the Enrollment expires.
"Federal Agency" means a bureau, office, agency, department or other entity of the United States
Government.
"Government" means a Federal Agency, State/Local Entity, or Tribal Entity acting in its governmental
capacity.
"Government Community Cloud Services" means Microsoft Online Services that are provisioned in
Microsoft's multi-tenant data centers for exclusive use by or for the Community and offered in accordance
with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-145. Microsoft
Online Services that are Government Community Cloud Services are designated as such in the Use Rights
and Product Terms.
"Industry Device" (also known as line of business device) means any device that: (1) is not useable in its
deployed configuration as a general purpose personal computing device (such as a personal computer), a
multi-function server, or a commercially viable substitute for one of these systems; and (2) only employs an
industry or task-specific software program (e.g. a computer-aided design program used by an architect or
a point of sale program) ("Industry Program"). The device may include features and functions derived from
Microsoft software or third-party software. If the device performs desktop functions (such as email, word
processing, spreadsheets, database, network or Internet browsing, or scheduling, or personal finance),
then the desktop functions: (1) may only be used for the purpose of supporting the Industry Program
functionality; and (2) must be technically integrated with the Industry Program or employ technically
enforced policies or architecture to operate only when used with the Industry Program functionality.
"Managed Device" means any device on which any Affiliate in the Enterprise directly or indirectly controls
one or more operating system environments. Examples of Managed Devices can be found in the Product
Terms.
"Qualified Device" means any device that is used by or for the benefit of Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise and
is: (1) a personal desktop computer, portable computer, workstation, or similar device capable of running
Windows Pro locally (in a physical or virtual operating system environment), or (2) a device used to access
a virtual desktop infrastructure ("VDI"). Qualified Devices do not include any device that is: (1) designated
as a server and not used as a personal computer, (2) an Industry Device, or (3) not a Managed Device. At
its option, the Enrolled Affiliate may designate any device excluded above (e.g., Industry Device) that is
used by or for the benefit of the Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise as a Qualified Device for all or a subset of
Enterprise Products or Online Services the Enrolled Affiliate has selected.
"Qualified User" means a person (e.g., employee, consultant, contingent staff) who: (1) is a user of a
Qualified Device, or (2) accesses any server software requiring an Enterprise Product Client Access
License or any Enterprise Online Service. It does not include a person who accesses server software or
an Online Service solely under a License identified in the Qualified User exemptions in the Product Terms.
"Reseller" means an entity authorized by Microsoft to resell Licenses under this program and engaged by
an Enrolled Affiliate to provide pre-and post-transaction assistance related to this agreement;
"Reserved License" means for an Online Service identified as eligible for true-ups in the Product Terms,
the License reserved by Enrolled Affiliate prior to use and for which Microsoft will make the Online Service
available for activation.
EA20201 EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Oct2019) Page 2 of 10
Document X20~626
"State/Local Entity" means (1) any agency of a state or local government in the United States, or (2) any
United States county, borough, commonwealth, city, municipality, town, township, special purpose district,
or other similar type of governmental instrumentality established by the laws of Customer's state and
located within Customer's state's jurisdiction and geographic boundaries.
"Tribal Entity" means a federally-recognized tribal entity performing tribal governmental functions and
eligible for funding and services from the U.S. Department of Interior by virtue of its status as an Indian
tribe.
"Use Rights" means, with respect to any licensing program, the use rights or terms of service for each
Product and version published for that licensing program at the Volume Licensing Site and updated from
time to time. The Use Rights include the Product-Specific License Terms, the License Model terms, the
Universal License Terms, the Data Protection Terms, and the Other Legal Terms. The Use Rights
supersede the terms of any end user license agreement (on-screen or otherwise) that accompanies a
Product.
"Volume Licensing Site" means http:llwww.microsoft.com/licensing/contracts or a successor site.
2. Order requirements.
a. Minimum order requirements. Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise must have a minimum of 250
Qualified Users or Qualified Devices. The initial order must include at least 250 Licenses for
Enterprise Products or Enterprise Online Services.
(i) Enterprise commitment. Enrolled Affiliate must order enough Licenses to cover all
Qualified Users or Qualified Devices, depending on the License Type, with one or more
Enterprise Products or a mix of Enterprise Products and the corresponding Enterprise
Online Services (as long as all Qualified Devices not covered by a License are only used
by users covered with a user License).
(ii) Enterprise Online Services only. If no Enterprise Product is ordered, then Enrolled
Affiliate need only maintain at least 250 Subscription Licenses for Enterprise Online
Services.
b. Additional Products. Upon satisfying the minimum order requirements above, Enrolled
Affiliate may order Additional Products.
c. Use Rights for Enterprise Products. For Enterprise Products, if a new Product version has
more restrictive use rights than the version that is current at the start of the applicable initial or
renewal term of the Enrollment, those more restrictive use rights will not apply to Enrolled
Affiliate's use of that Product during that term.
d. Country of usage. Enrolled Affiliate must specify the countries where Licenses will be used
on its initial order and on any additional orders.
e. Resellers. Enrolled Affiliate must choose and maintain a Reseller authorized in the United
States. Enrolled Affiliate will acquire its Licenses through its chosen Reseller. Orders must be
submitted to the Reseller who will transmit the order to Microsoft. The Reseller and Enrolled
Affiliate determine pricing and payment terms as between them, and Microsoft will invoice the
Reseller based on those terms. Throughout this Agreement the term "price" refers to reference
price. Resellers and other third parties do not have authority to bind or impose any obligation
or liability on Microsoft.
f. Adding Products.
(i) Adding new Products not previously ordered. New Enterprise Products or Enterprise
Online Services may be added at any time by contacting a Microsoft Account Manager or
Reseller. New Additional Products, other than Online Services, may be used if an order is
placed in the month the Product is first used. For Additional Products that are Online
Services, an initial order for the Online Service is required prior to use.
EA20201 EnrGov(US )SLG(ENG)(Oct2019) Page 3 of 10
DocumentX20~6~~
(ii) Adding Licenses for previously ordered Products. Additional Licenses for previously
ordered Products other than Online Services may be added at any time but must be
included in the next true-up order. Additional Licenses for Online Services must be ordered
prior to use, unless the Online Services are (1) identified as eligible for true-up in the
Product Terms or (2) included as part of other Licenses.
g. True-up requirements. Enrolled Affiliate must submit an annual true-up order that accounts
for any changes since the initial order or last order. If there are no changes, then an update
statement must be submitted instead of a true-up order.
(i) Enterprise Products. For Enterprise Products, Enrolled Affiliate must determine the
number of Qualified Devices and Qualified Users (if ordering user-based Licenses) at the
time the true-up order is placed and must order additional Licenses for all Qualified Devices
and Qualified Users that are not already covered by existing Licenses, including any
Enterprise Online Services.
(ii) Additional Products. For Additional Products that have been previously ordered under
this Enrollment, Enrolled Affiliate must determine the maximum number of Additional
Products used since the latter of the initial order, the last true-up order, or the prior
anniversary date and submit a true-up order that accounts for any increase.
(iii) Online Services. For Online Services identified as eligible for true-up in the Product
Terms, Enrolled Affiliate may place a reservation order for the additional Licenses prior to
use and payment may be deferred until the next true-up order. Microsoft will provide a
report of Reserved Licenses ordered but not yet invoiced to Enrolled Affiliate and its
Reseller. Reserved Licenses will be invoiced retrospectively to the month in which they
were ordered.
(iv) Subscription License reductions. Enrolled Affiliate may reduce the quantity of
Subscription Licenses at the Enrollment anniversary date on a prospective basis if
permitted in the Product Terms, as follows:
1) For Subscription Licenses that are part of an Enterprise-wide purchase, Licenses may
be reduced if the total quantity of Licenses and Software Assurance for an applicable
group meets or exceeds the quantity of Qualified Devices and Qualified Users (if
ordering user-based Licenses) identified on the Product Selection Form, and includes
any additional Qualified Devices and Qualified Users added in any prior true-up orders.
Step-up Licenses do not count towards this total count.
2) For Enterprise Online Services that are not a part of an Enterprise-wide purchase,
Licenses can be reduced as long as the initial order minimum requirements are
maintained.
3) For Additional Products available as Subscription Licenses, Enrolled Affiliate may
reduce the Licenses. If the License count is reduced to zero, then Enrolled Affiliate's
use of the applicable Subscription License will be cancelled.
Invoices will be adjusted to reflect any reductions in Subscription Licenses at the true-up
order Enrollment anniversary date and effective as of such date.
(v) Update statement. An update statement must be submitted instead of a true-up order if,
since the initial order or last true-up order, Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise: (1) has not
changed the number of Qualified Devices and Qualified Users licensed with Enterprise
Products or Enterprise Online Services; and (2) has not increased its usage of Additional
Products. This update statement must be signed by Enrolled Affiliate's authorized
representative.
(vi) True-up order period. The true-up order or update statement must be received by
Microsoft between 60 and 30 days prior to each Enrollment anniversary date. The third-
year true-up order or update statement is due within 30 days prior to the Expiration Date,
and any license reservations within this 30 day period will not be accepted. Enrolled Affiliate
EA20201 EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Oct2019) Page 4 of 10
Document X20~6~8
may submit true-up orders more often to account for increases in Product usage, but an
annual true-up order or update statement must still be submitted during the annual order
period.
(vii)Late true-up order. If the true-up order or update statement is not received when due,
Microsoft will invoice Reseller for all Reserved Licenses not previously invoiced and
Subscription License reductions cannot be reported until the following Enrollment
anniversary date (or at Enrollment renewal, as applicable).
h. Step-up Licenses. For Licenses eligible for a step-up under this Enrollment, Enrolled Affiliate
may step-up to a higher edition or suite as follows:
(i) For step-up Licenses included on an initial order, Enrolled Affiliate may order according to
the true-up process.
(ii) If step-up Licenses are not included on an initial order, Enrolled Affiliate may step-up
initially by following the process described in the Section titled "Adding new Products not
previously ordered," then for additional step-up Licenses, by following the true-up order
process.
i. Clerical errors. Microsoft may correct clerical errors in this Enrollment, and any documents
submitted with or under this Enrollment, by providing notice by email and a reasonable
opportunity for Enrolled Affiliate to object to the correction. Clerical errors include minor
mistakes, unintentional additions and omissions. This provision does not apply to material
terms, such as the identity, quantity or price of a Product ordered.
j. Verifying compliance. Microsoft may, in its discretion and at its expense, verify compliance
with this Enrollment as set forth in the Enterprise Agreement.
3. Pricing.
a. Price Levels. For both the initial and any renewal term Enrolled Affiliate's Price Level for all
Products ordered under this Enrollment will be Level "D" throughout the term of the Enrollment.
b. Setting Prices. Enrolled Affiliate's prices for each Product or Service will be established by its
Reseller. Except for Online Services designated in the Product Terms as being exempt from
fixed pricing, As long as Enrolled Affiliate continues to qualify for the same price level,
Microsoft's prices for Resellers for each Product or Service ordered will be fixed throughout the
applicable initial or renewal Enrollment term. Microsoft's prices to Resellers are reestablished
at the beginning of the renewal term.
4. Payment terms.
For the initial or renewal order, Microsoft will invoice Enrolled Affiliate's Reseller in three equal annual
installments. . The first installment will be invoiced upon Microsoft's acceptance of this Enrollment and
remaining installments will be invoiced on each subsequent Enrollment anniversary date. Subsequent
orders are invoiced upon acceptance of the order and Enrolled Affiliate may elect to pay annually or upfront
for Online Services and upfront for all other Licenses.
5. End of Enrollment term and termination.
a. General. At the Expiration Date, Enrolled Affiliate must immediately order and pay for Licenses
for Products it has used but has not previously submitted an order, except as otherwise
provided in this Enrollment.
b. Renewal option. At the Expiration Date of the initial term, Enrolled Affiliate can renew
Products by renewing this Enrollment for one additional 36-month term or by signing a new
Enrollment. Microsoft must receive a Renewal Form, Product Selection Form, and renewal
order prior to or at the Expiration Date. Microsoft will not unreasonably reject any renewal.
EA20201 EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Oct2019) Page 5 of 10
Document X20~62g
Microsoft may make changes to this program that will make it necessary for Customer and its
Enrolled Affiliates to enter into new agreements and Enrollments at renewal.
c. If Enrolled Affiliate elects not to renew.
(i) Software Assurance. If Enrolled Affiliate elects not to renew Software Assurance for any
Product under its Enrollment, then Enrolled Affiliate will not be permitted to order Software
Assurance later without first acquiring a new License with Software Assurance.
(ii) Online Services eligible for an Extended Term. For Online Services identified as eligible
for an Extended Term in the Product Terms, the following options are available at the end
of the Enrollment initial or renewal term.
1) Extended Term. Licenses for Online Services will automatically expire in accordance
with the terms of the Enrollment. An extended term feature that allows Online Services
to continue month-to-month ("Extended Term") is available. During the Extended
Term, Online Services will be invoiced monthly at the then-current published price as
of the Expiration Date plus a 3% administrative fee for up to one year. If Enrolled
Affiliate wants an Extended Term, Enrolled Affiliate must submit a request to Microsoft
at least 30 days prior to the Expiration Date.
2) Cancellation during Extended Term. At any time during the first year of the
Extended Term, Enrolled Affiliate may terminate the Extended Term by submitting a
notice of cancellation to Microsoft for each Online Service. Thereafter, either party
may terminate the Extended Term by providing the other with a notice of cancellation
for each Online Service. Cancellation will be effective at the end of the month following
30 days after Microsoft has received or issued the notice.
(iii) Subscription Licenses and Online Services not eligible for an Extended Term. If
Enrolled Affiliate elects not to renew, the Licenses will be cancelled and will terminate as
of the Expiration Date. Any associated media must be uninstalled and destroyed and
Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise must discontinue use. Microsoft may request written
certification to verify compliance.
d. Termination for cause. Any termination for cause of this Enrollment will be subject to the
"Termination for cause" section of the Agreement. In addition, it shall be a breach of this
Enrollment if Enrolled Affiliate or any Affiliate in the Enterprise that uses Government
Community Cloud Services fails to meet and maintain the conditions of membership in the
definition of Community.
e. Early termination. Any early termination of this Enrollment will be subject to the "Early
Termination" Section of the Enterprise Agreement.
For Subscription Licenses, in the event of a breach by Microsoft, or if Microsoft terminates an
Online Service for regulatory reasons, Microsoft will issue Reseller a credit for any amount paid
in advance for the period after termination.
6. Government Community Cloud.
a. Community requirements. If Enrolled Affiliate purchases Government Community Cloud
Services, Enrolled Affiliate certifies that it is a member of the Community and agrees to use
Government Community Cloud Services solely in its capacity as a member of the Community
and, for eligible Government Community Cloud Services, for the benefit of end users that are
members of the Community. Use of Government Community Cloud Services by an entity that
is not a member of the Community or to provide services to non-Community members is strictly
prohibited and could result in termination of Enrolled Affiliate's license(s) for Government
Community Cloud Services without notice. Enrolled Affiliate acknowledges that only
Community members may use Government Community Cloud Services.
b. All terms and conditions applicable to non-Government Community Cloud Services also apply
EA20201 EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG}(Oct2019) Page 6 of 10
Document X~:.?1b
to their corresponding Government Community Cloud Services, except as otherwise noted in
the Use Rights, Product Terms, and this Enrollment.
c. Enrolled Affiliate may not deploy or use Government Community Cloud Services and
corresponding non-Government Community Cloud Services in the same domain.
d. Use Rights for Government Community Cloud Services. For Government Community
Cloud Services, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Use Rights:
(i) Government Community Cloud Services will be offered only within the United States.
(ii) Additional European Terms, as set forth in the Use Rights, will not apply.
(iii) References to geographic areas in the Use Rights with respect to the location of Customer
Data at rest, as set forth in the Use Rights, refer only to the United States.
EA20201 EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Oc\2019) Page 7 of 10
Document X~ ~11
Enrollment Details
1. Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise.
a. Identify which Agency Affiliates are included in the Enterprise. (Required) Enrolled Affiliate's
Enterprise must consist of entire offices, bureaus, agencies, departments or other entities of
Enrolled Affiliate, not partial offices , bureaus, agencies, or departments, or other partial entities.
Check only one box in this section . If no boxes are checked , Microsoft will deem the Enterprise
to include the Enrolled Affiliate only. If more than one box is checked, Microsoft will deem the
Enterprise to include the largest number of Affiliates :
1:8:1 Enrolled Affiliate only
0 Enrolled Affiliate and all Affiliates
0 Enrolled Affiliate and the following Affiliate(s) (Only identify specific affiliates to be included
if fewer than all Affi liates are to be included in the Enterprise):
0 Enrolled Affiliate and all Affiliates, with following Affiliate(s) excluded :
b. Please ind icate whether the Enrolled Affiliate 's Enterprise will include all new Affiliates acquired
after the start of this Enrollment: Exclude future Affiliates
2. Contact information.
Each party will notify the other in writing if any of the information in the following contact information page(s)
changes. The asterisks (*) indicate required fields. By providing contact information , Enrolled Affiliate
consents to its use for purposes of administering this Enrollment by Microsoft, its Affiliates, and other parties
that help administer this Enrollment. The personal information provided in connection with this Enrollment
will be used and protected in accordance with the privacy statement available at
https ://www.microsoft.com/licensi nq/servicecenter.
a. Primary contact. This contact is the primary contact for the Enrollment from within Enrolled
Affiliate's Enterprise. This contact is also an Online Administrator for the Volume Licensing
Service Center and may grant online access to others . The primary contact will be the default
contact for all purposes unless separate contacts are identified for specific purposes
Name of entity (must be legal entity name)* City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Contact name* First Lukasz Last Buchwald
Contact email address* lbuchwald@rpvca.gov
Street address* 30940 Hawthorne Blvd
City* Rancho Palos Verdes
EA20201 EnrGov(US )SLG(ENG)(Oct2019) Page 8 of 10
Document xe; :?12
State* CA
Postal code* 90275-5351
(Please provide the zip + 4, e.g. xxxxx-xxxx)
Country* United States
Phone* 310-544-5311
TaxiD
*indicates required fields
b. Notices contact and Online Administrator. This contact (1) receives the contractual notices,
(2) is the Online Administrator for the Volume Licensing Service Center and may grant online
access to others, and (3) is authorized to order Reserved Licenses for eligible Online Servies,
including adding or reassigning Licenses and stepping-up prior to a true-up order.
C8J Same as primary contact (default if no information is provided below, even if the box is not
checked).
Contact name* First Last
Contact email address*
Street address*
City*
State*
Postal code*
(Please provide the zip + 4, e.g. xxxxx-xxxx)
Country*
Phone*
Language preference. Choose the language for notices. English
D This contact is a third party (not the Enrolled Affiliate). Warning: This contact receives
personally identifiable information of the Customer and its Affiliates.
*indicates required fields
c. Online Services Manager. This contact is authorized to manage the Online Services ordered
under the Enrollment and (for applicable Online Services) to add or reassign Licenses and
step-up prior to a true-up order.
C8J Same as notices contact and Online Administrator (default if no information is provided
below, even if box is not checked)
Contact name*: First Last
Contact email address*
Phone*
D This contact is from a third party organization (not the entity). Warning: This contact
receives personally identifiable information of the entity.
*indicates required fields
d. Reseller information. Reseller contact for this Enrollment is:
Reseller company name* Dell Inc.
Street address (PO boxes will not be accepted)* One Dell Way
City* Round Rock
State* TX
Postal code* 78682
Country* United States
Contact name* Government Contract Admin
Phone* 847-465-3700
Contact email address* US_MS_ VL_Admin@Dell.com
*indicates required fields
EA20201 EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Oct2019) Page 9 of 10
Document X~~13
By signing below, the Reseller identified above confirms that all information provided in this
Enrollment is correct.
Signature* h~Jt..H.; f3~~
Printed name* RoseAnn Bretzmann
Printed title* Analyst
Date* 12/11/2020
*indicates required fields
Changing a Reseller. If Microsoft or the Reseller chooses to discontinue doing business with
each other, Enrolled Affiliate must choose a replacement Reseller. If Enrolled Affiliate or the
Reseller intends to terminate their relationship, the initiating party must notify Microsoft and the
other party using a form provided by Microsoft at least 90 days prior to the date on which the
change is to take effect.
e. If Enrolled Affiliate requires a separate contact for any of the following, attach the Supplemental
Contact Information form. Otherwise, the notices contact and Online Administrator remains
the default.
(i) Additional notices contact
(ii) Software Assurance manager
(iii) Subscriptions manager
(iv) Customer Support Manager (CSM) contact
3. Financing elections.
Is a purchase under this Enrollment being financed through MS Financing? DYes, [2J No.
If a purchase under this Enrollment is financed through MS Financing, and Enrolled Affiliate chooses not to
finance any associated taxes, it must pay these taxes directly to Microsoft.
EA20201 EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Oct2019) Page 10 of 10
Document xe; ~1%
1• Microsoft Volume Licensing
Enterprise
Sub 250 Program
Amendment 10 W29
Enrollment Number ~.I _______ __.
This amendment ("Amendment") is entered into between the parties identified on the attached program
signature form. It amends the Enrollment or Agreement identified above . All terms used but not defined
in this Amendment will have the same meanings provided in that Enrollment or Agreement.
The parties agree that the Enrollment is amended as follows :
1. On the first page of the Enrollment, the following is added after the
second paragraph:
By entering into this Enrollment, the Enrolled Affiliate agrees that (1) it also has 25 or more Qualified
Devices or Qualified Users; or (2) as a condition of entering into this Enrollment with 25-249 Qualified
Devices or Qualified Users , Enrolled Affiliate has elected not to receive CD ROMs as part of the
Enrollment and therefore no CD ROMs will automatically be shipped . If Enrolled Affiliate is enrolling
with 25 -249 Qualified Devices or Qualified Users and it would like to receive CD ROM Kits and updates ,
Enrolled Affiliate may order these through its Reseller for a fee.
The submission of this Amendment can only be placed against a 2011 Enterprise Agreement or an
Enrollment that has the Updated EA Amendment terms and conditions applied . The submittal of this
Amendment may not be contingent on submittal of a new Enterprise Agreement.
2. Section 2a of the Enrollment titled "Order Requirements", is
hereby amended and restated in its entirety with the following:
a. Minimum Order Requirements. Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise must have a minimum of
25 Qualified Users or Qualified Devices.
(i) Initial Order. Initial order must include at least 25 Licenses from one of the four groups
outlined in the Product Selection Form .
(ii) If choosing Enterprise Products. If choosing Enterprise Products in a specific group
outlined in the Product Selection Form, Enrolled Affiliate 's initial order must include an
Enterprise-wide selection of one or more Enterprise Products or a mix of Enterprise
Products and corresponding Enterprise Online Services for that group .
(iii) Additional Products. Upon satisfying the minimum order requirements above ,
Enrolled Affiliate may order Additional Products .
(iv) Country of Usage. Enrolled Affiliate must specify the countries where Licenses will
be used on its initial order and on any additional orders .
(v) Enterprise Online Services only. If no Enterprise Product is ordered, then Enrolled
Affiliate need only maintain at least 25 Subscription Licenses for Enterprise Online
Services .
3. Software Assurance renewal.
Renewing Software Assurance: If Enrolled Affiliate will be renewing Products
Software Assurance coverage from a separate agreement, check this box.
EAEnrAmend(NA)(ENG)(May2018) Sub 250 Program
W29
0
0
Page 1 of 2
G-15
By checking the above box, a new section is added to the Enrollment entitled "Software Assurance
Addition."
Software Assurance Addition. Enrolled Affiliate is permitted to and will include in its initial order under
this Enrollment Software Assurance quantities from eligible Program's identified in the table below, even
though Enrolled Affiliate is not otherwise eligible to order such Software Assurance without
simultaneously ordering a License.
Enrolled Affiliate agrees that any perpetual Licenses received through the New Software Assurance
shall supersede and replace the underlying Licenses, and the underlying Licenses are not to be
transferred separately from any Licenses received through the New Software Assurance. Any remaining
payment obligations with respect to the underlying Licenses shall continue in effect.
.,. 4l!Fiit.lii•llll·
Except for changes made by this Amendment, the Enrollment or Agreement identified above remains
unchanged and in full force and effect. If there is any conflict between any provision in this Amendment
and any provision in the Enrollment or Agreement identified above, this Amendment shall control.
This Amendment must be attached to a signature form to be valid.
EAEnrAmend(NA)(ENG )(May2018) Sub 250 Program
W29
0
Page 2 of 2
G-16
Enterprise Enrollment Product Selection Form Microsoft I Volume Licensing
ProposaiiD Enrollment Number
1026319.006
Language: English (United States)
Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise Products and Enterprise Online Services summary for the initial order:
Profile Qualified Qualified Users Device I User Enterprise Product Platform Devices Ratio
Enterprise 140 140 1.0 No
Products I Enterprise Quantity
Microsoft 365 Enterprise
Microsoft 365 E3 USL I
Enrolled Affiliate's Product Quantities:
Price Group 1 2 3
Enterprise Products Office Professional Plus + Client Access License + Client Access
Office 365 ProPius + Office Office 365 (Plans E1 , E3 License + Windows
365 (Plans E3 and E5) + and E5) + Microsoft 365 Intune + EMS USL +
Microsoft 365 Enterprise Enterprise Microsoft 365
Enterprise
Quantity 140 140 140
Enrolled Affiliate's Price Level:
Product Offering I Pool
Enterprise Products and Enterprise Online Services USLs: Unless otherwise indicated in associated contract
documents , Price level set using the highest quantity from Groups 1 through 4.
Additional Product Application Pool: Unless otherwise indicated in associated contract documents , Price level
set using quantity from Group 1.
Additional Product Server Pool: Unless otherwise indicated in associated contract documents, Price level set
using the highest quantity from Group 2 or 3.
Additional Product Systems Pool: Unless otherwise indicated in associated contract documents, Price level set
using quantity from Group 4.
NOTES
Unless otherwise indicated in the associated contract documents, the price level for each Product offering I pool is set as described
above , based upon the quantity to price level mapping below:
EA-EASProdSeiForm(WN)(ENG)
CAL Licensing
Model
User Licenses
4
Win E3 + Win E5 +
Win VDA+
Microsoft 365
Enterprise
140
Price Level
D
D
D
D
Page 1 of 2
MS Quote
G-17
140
Enterprise Enrollment Product Selection Form Microsoft I Volume licensing
Quantity of Licenses and Software Assurance Price Level
2,399 and below A
2,400 to 5,999 B
6 ,000 to 14 ,999 c
15 ,000 and above D
Note 1 : Enterprise Online Services may not be available in all locations. Please see the Product List for a list of locations where these
may be purchased .
Note 2: If Enrolled Affiliate does not order an Enterprise Product or Enterprise Online Service associated with an applicable Product pool ,
the price level for Additional Products in the same pool will be price level "A" throughout the term of the Enrollment. Refer to the Qualifying
Government Entity Addendum pricing provision for more details on price leveling.
EA-EASProdSeiForm(IJIIW)(ENG)
Page 2 of2
MS Quote
G-18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes PRE SIG
Final Audit Report 2020-12-14
Created : 2020-12-11
By : Roseann Bretzmann (Roseann_Bretzmann@Dell.com)
Status : Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAdOONGIOriNCfpj9_xl3p0 -UrPFOTeCZB
"City of Rancho Palos Verdes PRE SIG" History
'El Document created by Roseann Bretzmann (Roseann_Bretzmann@Dell.com)
2020-12-11 -10:11:20 PM GMT-IP address: 71 .239 .9 8.165
8'.. Document emailed to Suzanna Hartman (v -suhart@mslicense.com) for signature
2020-12-11 -10:11:57 PM GMT
'El Email viewed by Suzanna Hartman (v-suhart@mslicense.com)
2020-12-14-11 :41 :44 PM GMT-IP address : 104.47 .54 .254
6(1 Document e-signed by Suzanna Hartman (v-suhart@mslicense .com)
Signature Date : 2020-12-14-11 :43 :03 PM GMT-Time Source: server-IP address : 107.198.148.95
0 Agreement completed.
2020-12 -14 -11 :43:03 PM GMT
OOLL Technologies I POW£DEDBV Adobe Sign
G-19
Microsoft I Volume licensing
Discount Transparency Disclosure Form
Date : 12/10/2020
Program: Enterprise 6
Enrollment Number: Renewal
Quote Number: 1026319.006
Partner Name: Dell Inc.
Reseller Address: One Dell Way
RoundRock, TX , United States, 78682-7000
Discount Details
For this enrollment, Microsoft provided the Customer's Partner an additional discount off of the Partner's Net
Price. The Partner is required, by Microsoft, to pass on the additional discount to the Customer by reducing the
Microsoft Product resale price by an amount equal to or greater then the discount.
Listed in the table below is the maximum price the partner may charge for the Microsoft Products to be ordered
under this enrollment. The Maximum Resale Price (MRP) is calculated by subtracting the additional discount
provided to the Partner, from the total estimated resale price for the Microsoft Products .
The requirement to pass through the additional discount, does not mean that Microsoft is setting the
Customer's actual price . Partners remain free to set the price charged for Microsoft Products at any point equal
to or below MRP . The Customer's actual price will be established by a separate agreement between Customer
and its Partner.
Ordered Products
Currency I Maximum Resale Price
US Dollar I 238,308
Note : The Maximum Resale Price listed in the table above only pertains to the Microsoft Products to be ordered under this
Enrollment. The content of this form has no impact on the Customer 's price for Non-Microsoft products and services .
In this form , the following definitions apply:
"Customer" means the entity that may enter or has entered into a Contract with the Partner.
"Contract" means a binding agreement between the Partner and Affiliate, under which Customer orders Products from Partner.
"Microsoft" means (1) the entity that has entered into an agreement with Partner under which Partner may place orders for
Microsoft Products for use by the Customer and (2) the affiliates of such entity , as appropriate .
"Maximum Resale Price " means the sum of the Estimated Retail Price for all Microsoft Products ordered under the Customer
Contract minus the aggregated discount off of the Partner's Net Price provided by Microsoft listed in the curren cy in which the
Partner or Partner's reseller transacts with Microsoft .
"Product" means all Microsoft Products identified in the Product Terms, such as all Software , Online Services , and other web-
based services , including pre-release or beta version. Microsoft product availability may vary by region .
Partner:
Customer:
Signature of Customer's authorized representative:
Printed name:
Printed title:
Date:
1/1
H-1
DocuSign Envelope 10 : FC693397 -768C-4564-832B-F8053CFC8017
C a I
~
Coastal
Conservancy
December 7, 2020
Mayor John Cruikshank
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
CB
State of California
Wildlife Conservation Board
Re: Restrictions ofPublic Access to Palos Verdes Peninsula Preserves
Dear Mayor Cruikshank,
It has come to the attention of the State Coastal Conservancy (Conservancy) and the Wildlife
Conservation Board (WCB) that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) has , over several
years, including in summer 2020, taken steps to restrict public parking near popular
trailheads to Palos Verdes Nature Preserve on Crenshaw Blvd south ofCt·est Rd and on Park
Place at Del Cerro Park. These restrictions have limited an off-street parking lot on Park
Place at Del Cerro Park to City residents and eliminated street parking spaces on Crenshaw
Blvd through "red-curbing ." The Conservancy and WCB granted a total of $17,050,000 to
the City to acquire several of the properties that make up the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve .
The terms of these grants, as discussed below, require the City to manage the preserves for
protection of natural resources and for public access. The City's actions to restrict public
parking near the trailheads interfere with the public access purpose of the Preserve by making
it less accessible to visitors from outside the neighborhood and the City. These barriers to
access are of particular concern at a time when access to open space is in high demand and
provides important benefits to Californians suffering from the effects ofthe coronavirus
pandemic. The Conservancy and WCB request that the City remove parking restrictions on
streets adjacent to Preserve trailheads, and prepare a comprehensive public access plan for
the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. We understand that the City is currently preparing a
holistic parking plan for the Preserve and is conducting outreach to Homeowner
Associations, the Palos Verdes Preserve Land Conservancy, Trump National Golf Club, and
the Terranea Resort. The plan should address how access will be facilitated so that the
Preserve is available to the wider region , including park-poor communities of Los Angeles,
not just residents ofthe surrounding neighborhoods and the city . It would be helpful to
conduct outreach to groups representing broader regional interest in open space access, such
as Nature for All, Community Nature Connection , Outdoor Afro, Latino Outdoors, Los
Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust, and Heal the Bay.
f o r n i a S t a t e Coastal
1515 Clay St, 1 O'h Floor
Oakland , California 94612-140 I
51 0·286·1 015 Fax: 510 ·286 ·0470
Conservan
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC693397 -768C-4564-832B-F8D53CFC8017
C a I
~
Coastal
Consetvancy
CB
State of California
Wildlife Conservation Board
On August 26, 2005, the City and WCB entered into grant agreement number WT-5004DT
pursuant to which WCB provided $10,000,000 for the acquisition of the Portuguese Bend
and Agua Amarga Canyon properties. On November 28, 2005 , the City and the Conservancy
entered into Grant Agreement 05-059. Under that agreement, the Conservancy provided
$1,550,000 in public funds for the acquisition of the Pmiuguese Bend and Agua Amarga
Canyon properties. On December 8, 2009, the City and the Conservancy entered into Grant
Agreement 09-004. Under that agreement, the Conservancy provided $5,500,000 in public
funds for the acquisition of the Upper Filiorum and Plumtree properties. Under the terms of
the Conservancy agreements, the properties must be used and managed for open space,
habitat preservation and restoration, and public access. Further, the Conservancy grant
agreements state: "The grantee shall refrain from developing or otherwise using any other
property it owns or controls in the vicinity of the real property in a manner that interferes
with or inconveniences the use, management, operation or maintenance of the real property
or detracts from the purposes of the acquisition." The WCB grant agreement includes as an
exhibit the conservation easement recorded by the City in favor of the Palos Verdes Land
Conservancy, which states that the Preserve shall be accessible to the public consistent with
the terms of the Public Use Master Plan . Parking restrictions imposed by the City on streets
adjacent to popular trailheads at Palos Verdes Nature Preserve impede use of the Preserve by
the general public and are inconsistent with the terms of the WCB and Conservancy grants.
We ask that City staff contact Conservancy Deputy Regional Program Manger Joel Gerwein
as soon as possible to discuss immediate steps the City will take in response to this request.
Dr. Gerwein can be reached at joel.gerwein @ scc.ca .gov or 51 0-286-4170. The WCB staff
assigned to this project is John Walsh , and he can be reached at john .wa ls h@wild life.ca.gov
or at 916-247-8695.
Sincerely,
Executive Officer
Califomia State Coastal Conservancy
fornta S t a t e
~OocuSigned by:
~~~72~0~9P!~
JUllll IJUIIIICIIJ
Executive Director
Wildlife Conservation Board
Coastal
1515 Clay St, I 0111 Floor
Oakland, California 94612-140 I
510·286·1015 Fax: 510·286·0470
C o n s e r v a n c y
CITY OF
December 14, 2020
Via U .S. Mail and Email
Mr. John Donnelly
Executive Director
Wildlife Conservation Board
1515 Clay St., 101h Floor
Oakland, Cal ifornia 94612 -1401
Mr. Sam Schuchat
Executive Officer
California State Coastal Conservancy
1515 Clay St., 1Oth Floor
Oakland, California 94612-1401
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY MANAGER'S OFF ICE
AD MINI STRAT ION
Subject: City Response to the California State Coastal Conservancy's and the Wildlife
Conservation Board's Letter on Acquisition Grants WT -5004DT, 05 -059 , and
09 -004 for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
Dear Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Schuchat:
The City is in receipt of your letter dated December 7, 2020 pertaining to potential
noncompliance with the Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) and California State Coastal
Conservancy (CCC) grant restrictions regard ing public access. I respectfully di sagree with
the allegations stated in your letter and would like to provide additional information on the
situation for the WCB 's and the CCC 's consideration .
As you aptly state in you r letter, the City received a combined $17 ,050,000 million dollars
between August 2005 a nd December 2009 to acquire several properties that would
eventually become a part of the larger overall 1 ,400 -acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
("Preserve") formally established in 2008. The City is most appreciative of the WCB's and
CCC 's grant funds that removed these properties from potential development for the
preservation of biological resources in perpetuity . The WCB's and CCC 's g rants enabled
the City to move forward with securing the acreage needed for what is now the only area in
Los Angeles County with a nature preserve that is enrolled in a Natural Communities
Conservation Plan/Habitat Preservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) pursuant to state and federal
wildlife agency criteria. This is quite a feat for a primarily small residential community with a
limited general fund.
I bring this to your attention up front , because in 1996, the City entered into a planning
agreement with the California Department and U.S . Fish and Wildlife Agencies ("Agencies ")
to develop an NCCP/HCP. At the time , the City did not own enough land to provide a
functional preserve for the protection of specific biological resources. As a result, the City
proceeded to seek funding opportunities to acquire land to support its desired NCCP/HCP . I
am quite ple ased to say that after more than two decades of planning, on November 19,
2019 , the City Council adopted its NCCP/HCP.
30940 HAWTHORNE 13LVD I RAN CHO PA LOS VERDES , CA 90275·5391/ (3 10) 544·5207 I FAX (310) 544·520 i t WWWRPVCA .GOV
PR I'ITED ON F~ECYC L ED 11\Pm d.
Wildlife Conservation Board and California State Coastal Commission
December 14, 2020
Page 2
Over the years, the City received approximately $24 Million in local, state, and federal public
funding to help fund the purchase approximately 775.4 acres of the 1 ,400-acre Preserve
property. The granting agencies included, among others, the WCB and CCC. Most of this
grant funding, as you are aware, came with stipulations and/or restrictions on how the land
is managed. Some of these stipulations include keeping the area open far public use, so
lang as the public use does not interfere with conservation requirements of the NCCP/HCP;
prohibiting discrimination based on place of residency and other factors; and a requirement
to provide reasonable parking. None of the grants place parking restrictions on the Preserve
properties as to the number of spaces or proximity to the Preserve. This is because the
properties, as stated in the grant applications, were being sought primarily for biological
protection, and secondly for passive recreation through public access.
The primary purpose of the Preserve is to provide comprehensive management and
conservation of multiple species. The City Council-adopted NCCPfHCP states, among
ather things, that recreational use is a conditional use. Again, this is because the primary
purpose of the Preserve is habitat conservation for the purposes of the City's NCCP/HCP.
Compatible and passive recreational use may take place in the Preserve, as long as the
public use is in compliance with the City Council-approved Public Use Master Plan (PUMP).
The 2013 City Council-adopted PUMP is a NCCP/HCP mandated document that defines
allowable public use, the amenities to support public use, and identifies access and parking
locations for the Preserve. Adherence to the PUMP ensures compliance with the
NCCP/HCP's Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures. The City actively
manages and balances passive recreational use with natural resource protection far the
Preserve.
A section of the PUMP that is of particular importance to the parking concern you raise is
the defined Preserve parking and access areas. The PUMP describes public parking for
the Reserves that make up the Preserve including Three Sisters, Filiorum, Portuguese
Bend, and Forrestal Reserves. It describes existing parking throughout the City to support
public access to the Preserve, such as City Hall (Alta Vicente Reserve), Pelican Cove
parking lot, Lower Point Vicente (Vicente Bluffs Reserve), Abalone Cave, Ladera Linda
Community Center to name a few locations. Additionally, Preserve parking is also identified
on some streets including Crenshaw Blvd. At no point do any of the City documents nor
grant agreements indicate where parking should be located nor where the main entrance to
the Preserve is located. This is because it was originally envisioned that the public can
access the Preserve at its multiple trailheads throughout the City, not one location.
To that point, the City has not acted or expressed intent to deny parking to the Portuguese
Bend and Filiorum Reserves, and specifically at Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd. At the
September 1, and subsequently the October 20 City Council meetings, the City Council took
action to extend approximately 390 feet of red curb on Crenshaw Blvd. where the road
narrows to temporarily alleviate traffic conditions in this particular neighborhood for a period
of 60 days. However, this red curb area is temporary until better and more long-term
solutions are implemented to address traffic and parking congestion impacts in this specific
area. Approximately 40 spaces remain south of Crest Road, and over 100 parking spaces
remain on Crenshaw Blvd., north of Crest Rd. approximately }4 mile from Rattlesnake
Trailhead. Preserve parking remains available to the public throughout the City.
Wildlife Conservat ion Board and California State Coastal Commission
Decembe r 14 , 2020
Page 3
During this temporary per iod, the City Council directed staff to engage the services of a
traffic engineer to look at current traffic conditions and traffic calming measures, to explore
shuttle services to several Preserve trailheads , and to implement parking solutions that
could include an app-based reservation parking system and possibly paid parking . The City
is not planning to implement a parking program on Crenshaw Blvd. that favors residents . I
should note that the 16 parking spaces on Park Place requiring a Recreational Permit
available only to residents is now being considered to be included in the parking reservation
system available to the general public .
Concurrently , staff is studying traffic and parking for the P reserve in a holistic way, as the
City has 12 individual Reserve properties that make up the overall Preserve including public
trails that complete the City's section of the California Coastal Trail , popu lar trails to the
beach , and a more comprehensive City-wide trails network. The public , both residents and
non -res idents , have been provided notifications of scheduled C ity Council meetings and are
encouraged to provide input as the City seeks solutions . T he City Council will be
considering this topic at its upcoming December 15 , 2020 meeting. Below are links to 4
recent City Council staff reports on the topic. The last link is a link to the December 15
meeting City Council staff report:
https ://rpv .granicus .com/M etaVi ewe r.ph p?vi ew id =5&cli p id =36 20&meta id =80874
https://rp v .granicus .co rn/Meta V iewer.ph p?view id =5&clip id =3 715&meta id=85588
https :/lrpv .granicus .com /MetaVi ewe r.ph p?view id =5&clip id =3719&meta id =8591 0
https://rpv.granicus .com/MetaViewer .p hp?view id=5&c lip id =3749&meta id=87300
htt ps ://rpv.g ranicus .co rn/MetaViewer.P...b.R?v iew id =5&event id =1679&meta id =89143
T he Ci ty ne ver a nt icip ated the amount of vi sitation we are now experiencing and is making
a concerted effort to ba lance pu blic ac cess while minimizing neighborhood impacts . The
Ci ty be li eves it is p rovi d ing publ ic park ing access to all patrons while it continues to explore
th e adverse impacts associated with traffic and p arking congestion to the Prese rve . The
City continues to provide public parking to all of its properties a cquired using WCF and CCC
grant mon ey . In light of this information provided, I request furthe r c larification from the
WCB and CCC . If the opinion remains t hat the City is not providing public access, please
define public access . I look forward to our continued discussion on this matter .
c . Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
William Wynder, City Attorney
From: Katie Lozano
Sent:
To:
Thursday, December 10, 2020 3:36PM
Kimberly Macy
Cc: CC; CityCierk
Subject: Re: PLEASE SAVE OUR TRAILS!
Hello Ms. Macy,
Thank you for your email. The Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project and Preserve
Parking and Access efforts are being prepared in compliance with the City's Trails Network Plan,
Conceptual Trails Plan and Preserve Public Use Master Plan. The Preserve Parking and Access
effort does not propose development internal to the Preserve or on open space land that would
trigger closing existing trails or implementing new conceptual trails, and at this time the Portuguese
Bend Landslide Remediation Project is not anticipated to cause any existing authorized trails to be
relocated. However, if an authorized trail is temporarily closed during construction of the project, the
City will repair and reopen the trail as part of the project. Moreover, both of these City
projects will not result in the permanent closure of the two authorized access points from the
Portuguese Bend Community to the Preserve .
It is the City's practice to identify opportunities during construction projects to implement
the conceptual trails identified within the Conceptual Trails Plan (the trails identified in the Preserve
Trails Plan of the Public Use Master Plan ((PUMP)) already exist). However, in the case of private
development projects, the City cannot require a private property owner to implement a trail on their
private property . In these cases, the City works with the private property owner at the time the
property owner submits a development application to describe the benefits of dedicating the
appropriate easements for trail access and to determine if the property owner is willing to voluntarily
dedicate land for a trail easement. Again, the City cannot require such a trail easement dedication
from a property owner.
Public safety is top priority for the City. The City works directly with the LA County Fire Department
and LA County Sheriff's Department on disaster evacuation, firefighting access, and emergency
preparedness . In fact, the City held a test operation of the Emergency Operations Center in
November in coordination with public safety agencies, and a focus was emergency response
within the Preserve. The network of existing trails throughout the City do offer access in response to
an emergency if warranted.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can provide additional or more specific
information.
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are
1
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit . Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Kimberly Macy <kmacy@macyinc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 2:47 PM
To: CC; CityCierk; Katie Lozano
Cc: sherihastings@yahoo .com
Subject: PLEASE SAVE OUR TRAILS!
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members:
As a hiker, equestrian and homeowner in the Portuguese Bend community, I am writing to express concern
over the impacts of the Landslide Mitigation Project as well as the parking and access projects.
Encircled as we are by the nature preserves and the public trail systems on all sides, each proposed project,
while possibly worthy, impact us all. Each project encroaches on current trails, habitat and public health by
bringing more people to less and less space. The project mitigation plans do not address the impact on the
horse community and those who wish to continue to recreate safely on the trails. In 1984, the city approved
The Trail Network Plan to enhance and maintain the trails. City staff were directed to watch for opportunity
to enhance the trail network where other projects are proposed and initiated by staff. The plan included the
need for disaster evacuation, firefighting access and other emergency preparedness concerns. The Palos
Verdes Loop trail has already been disrupted. Due to erosion and lack of maintenance, new ways of getting
through were created by trail users who then encroached on private property, which was later closed off.
These factors have led to the loss of full segments of the trail network.
We ask that while you plan both the parking and landslide mitigation projects, as well as any future projects,
you follow the already adopted Trail Network Plan and look to enhance the trail network at every opportunity.
This includes engineering permanent trail routes, canyon crossings, erosion control and access to trails from
the Portuguese Bend Community. Access to Jack's Hat and Three Sisters is now at risk, dependent on property
owners and conservancy to make a deal. This too puts more people on fewer trails which affects us all, the
habitat and public safety. Please include the 1984 Trails Network plan in your plans.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Macy Richardson
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Mr. Matarazzo,
Katie Lozano
Thursday, December 10, 2020 3:27 PM
Matarazzo, Andrew
CC; CityCierk
Re: Saving our trails
Thank you for your email. The Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project and Preserve
Parking and Access efforts are being prepared in compliance with the City's Trails Network Plan,
Conceptual Trails Plan and Preserve Public Use Master Plan. The Preserve Parking and Access
effort does not propose development internal to the Preserve or on open space land that would
trigger closing existing trails or implementing new conceptual trails, and at this time the Portuguese
Bend Landslide Remediation Project is not anticipated to cause any existing authorized trails to be
relocated. However, if an authorized trail is temporarily closed during construction of the project, the
City will repair and reopen the trail as part of the project. Moreover, both of these City
projects will not result in the permanent closure of the two authorized access points from the
Portuguese Bend Community to the Preserve.
It is the City's practice to identify opportunities during construction projects to implement
the conceptual trails identified within the Conceptual Trails Plan (the trails identified in the Preserve
Trails Plan of the Public Use Master Plan ((PUMP)) already exist). However, in the case of private
development projects, the City cannot require a private property owner to implement a trail on their
private property. In these cases, the City works with the private property owner at the time the
property owner submits a development application to describe the benefits of dedicating the
appropriate easements for trail access and to determine if the property owner is willing to voluntarily
dedicate land for a trail easement. Again, the City cannot require such a trail easement dedication
from a property owner.
Public safety is top priority for the City. The City works directly with the LA County Fire Department
and LA County Sheriff's Department on disaster evacuation, firefighting access, and emergency
preparedness. In fact, the City held a test operation of the Emergency Operations Center in
November in coordination with public safety agencies, and a focus was emergency response
within the Preserve. The network of existing trails throughout the City do offer access in response to
an emergency if warranted.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can provide additional or more specific
information.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
1 J.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit . Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time . Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Matarazzo, Andrew <amatarazzo@oaktreecapital.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 3:50 PM
To: CC; CityCierk; Katie Lozano
Cc: sherihastings@yahoo.com
Subject: Saving our trails
Please find attached a letter outlining concerns about equestrian trail access and maintenance.
Andy Matarazzo
amatarazzo@oaktreecapital .com
1-213 -830 -6778 (p)
1-310-920 -7013 (m)
2
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members:
As a hiker, equestrian and horse owner in the Portuguese Bend community, I am writing to express
concern over the impacts of the Landslide Mitigation Project as well as the parking and access projects.
Encircled as we are by the nature preserves and the public trail systems on all sides, each proposed
project, while possibly worthy, impact us all. Each project encroaches on current trails, habitat and
public health by bringing more people to less and less space. The project mitigation plans do not address
the impact on the horse community and those who wish to continue to recreate safely on the trails. In
1984, the city approved The Trail Network Plan to enhance and maintain the trails. City staff were
directed to watch for opportunity to enhance the trail network where other projects are proposed
and initiated by staff. The plan included the need for disaster evacuation, firefighting access and other
emergency preparedness concerns. The Palos Verdes Loop trail has already been disrupted. Due to
erosion and lack of maintenance, new ways of getting through were created by trail users who then
encroached on private property, which was later closed off. These factors have led to the loss of full
segments of the trail network.
We ask that while you plan both the parking and landslide mitigation projects, as well as any future
projects, you follow the already adopted Trail Network Plan and look to enhance the trail network at
every opportunity. This includes engineering permanent trail routes, canyon crossings, erosion control
and access to trails from the Portuguese Bend Community. Access to Jack's Hat and Three Sisters is now
at risk, dependent on property owners and conservancy to make a deal. This too puts more people on
fewer trails which affects us all, the habitat and public safety. Please include the 1984 Trails Network
plan in your plans.
Sincerely,
Andrew and Pauline Matarazzo
RPV residents since 2003
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Ms. Yung,
Katie Lozano
Thursday, December 10, 2020 3:26PM
GRACE
CC; CityCierk
Re: Please include the 1984 Trails Network plan in your plans.
Thank you for your email. The Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project and Preserve
Parking and Access efforts are being prepared in compliance with the City's Trails Network Plan,
Conceptual Trails Plan and Preserve Public Use Master Plan. The Preserve Parking and Access
effort does not propose development internal to the Preserve or on open space land that would
trigger closing existing trails or implementing new conceptual trails, and at this time the Portuguese
Bend Landslide Remediation Project is not anticipated to cause any existing authorized trails to be
relocated. However, if an authorized trail is temporarily closed during construction of the project, the
City will repair and reopen the trail as part of the project. Moreover, both of these City
projects will not result in the permanent closure of the two authorized access points from the
Portuguese Bend Community to the Preserve.
It is the City's practice to identify opportunities during construction projects to implement
the conceptual trails identified within the Conceptual Trails Plan (the trails identified in the Preserve
Trails Plan of the Public Use Master Plan ((PUMP)) already exist). However, in the case of private
development projects, the City cannot require a private property owner to implement a trail on their
private property. In these cases, the City works with the private property owner at the time the
property owner submits a development application to describe the benefits of dedicating the
appropriate easements for trail access and to determine if the property owner is willing to voluntarily
dedicate land for a trail easement. Again, the City cannot require such a trail easement dedication
from a property owner.
Public safety is top priority for the City. The City works directly with the LA County Fire Department
and LA County Sheriff's Department on disaster evacuation, firefighting access, and emergency
preparedness. In fact, the City held a test operation of the Emergency Operations Center in
November in coordination with public safety agencies, and a focus was emergency response
within the Preserve. The network of existing trails throughout the City do offer access in response to
an emergency if warranted.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can provide additional or more specific
information.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
1 J.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are
working on rotat i on and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: GRACE <jordette@msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 5:28 PM
To: CC; CityCierk; Katie Lozano
Subject: Please include the 1984 Trails Network plan in your plans.
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members:
Please see the attached/
Thank you,
Grace Yung.
2
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members:
As a hiker, equestrian and homeowner in the Portuguese Bend community, I am writing to express
concern over the impacts of the Landslide Mitigation Project as well as the parking and access projects.
Encircled as we are by the nature preserves and the public trail systems on all sides, each proposed
project, while possibly worthy, impact us all. Each project encroaches on current trails, habitat and
public health by bringing more people to less and less space. The project mitigation plans do not address
the impact on the horse community and those who wish to continue to recreate safely on the trails. In
1984, the city approved The Trail Network Plan to enhance and maintain the trails. City staff were
directed to watch for opportunity to enhance the trail network where other projects are proposed
and initiated by staff. The plan included the need for disaster evacuation, firefighting access and other
emergency preparedness concerns. The Palos Verdes Loop trail has already been disrupted. Due to
erosion and lack of maintenance, new ways of getting through were created by trail users who then
encroached on private property, which was later closed off. These factors have led to the loss of full
segments of the trail network.
We ask that while you plan both the parking and landslide mitigation projects, as well as any future
projects, you follow the already adopted Trail Network Plan and look to enhance the trail network at
every opportunity. This includes engineering permanent trail routes, canyon crossings, erosion control
and access to trails from the Portuguese Bend Community. Access to Jack's Hat and Three Sisters is now
at risk, dependent on property owners and conservancy to make a deal. This too puts more people on
fewer trails which affects us all, the habitat and public safety. Please include the 1984 Trails Network
plan in your plans.
Sincerely,
f~f/~
Grace Yung
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Ms. Gardner,
Katie Lozano
Thursday, December 10, 2020 3:25 PM
cgardnerrpv@gmail.com
CC; CityCierk
Re: Request for Including Trail Updates & Repairs to RPV CC Landslide Mitigation
Direction
Thank you for your email. The Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project and Preserve
Parking and Access efforts are being prepared in compliance with the City's Trails Network Plan,
Conceptual Trails Plan and Preserve Public Use Master Plan. The Preserve Parking and Access
effort does not propose development internal to the Preserve or on open space land that would
trigger closing existing trails or implementing new conceptual trails, and at this time the Portuguese
Bend Landslide Remediation Project is not anticipated to cause any existing authorized trails to be
relocated. However, if an authorized trail is temporarily closed during construction of the project, the
City will repair and reopen the trail as part of the project. Moreover, both of these City
projects will not result in the permanent closure of the two authorized access points from the
Portuguese Bend Community to the Preserve.
It is the City's practice to identify opportunities during construction projects to implement
the conceptual trails identified within the Conceptual Trails Plan (the trails identified in the Preserve
Trails Plan of the Public Use Master Plan ((PUMP)) already exist). However, in the case of private
development projects, the City cannot require a private property owner to implement a trail on their
private property. In these cases, the City works with the private property owner at the time the
property owner submits a development application to describe the benefits of dedicating the
appropriate easements for trail access and to determine if the property owner is willing to voluntarily
dedicate land for a trail easement. Again, the City cannot require such a trail easement dedication
from a property owner.
Public safety is top priority for the City. The City works directly with the LA County Fire Department
and LA County Sheriff's Department on disaster evacuation, firefighting access, and emergency
preparedness. In fact, the City held a test operation of the Emergency Operations Center in
November in coordination with public safety agencies, and a focus was emergency response
within the Preserve. The network of existing trails throughout the City do offer access in response to
an emergency if warranted.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can provide additional or more specific
information.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
1
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit . Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed . For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website .
From: cgardnerrpv@gmail.com <cgardnerrpv@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 10:23 AM
To: CC; CityCierk; Katie Lozano
Cc: sherihastings@yahoo .com
Subject: Request for Including Trail Updates & Repairs to RPV CC Landslide Mitigation Direction
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members:
As a hiker, equestrian and homeowner in the Portuguese Bend community, I am writing to express
concern over the impacts of the Landslide Mitigation Project as well as the parking and access
projects.
Encircled as we are by the nature preserves and the public trail systems on all sides, each proposed
project, while possibly worthy , impact us all.
Each project encroaches on current trails, habitat and public health by bringing more people to less
and less space.
The project mitigation plans do not address the impact on the horse community and those who wish
to continue to recreate safely on the trails. In 1984, the city approved The Trail Network Plan to
enhance and maintain the trails. City staff were directed to watch for opportunity to enhance the
trail network where other projects are proposed and initiated by staff. The plan included the
need for disaster evacuation , firefighting access and other emergency preparedness concerns. The
Palos Verdes Loop trail has already been disrupted. Due to erosion and lack of maintenance, new
ways of getting through were created by trail users who then encroached on private property, which
was later closed off. These factors have led to the loss of full segments of the trail network .
We ask that while you plan both the parking and landslide mitigation projects, as well as any future
projects, you follow the already adopted Trail Network Plan and look to enhance the trail network at
every opportunity:
This includes engineering permanent trail routes, canyon crossings, erosion control and
access to trails from the Portuguese Bend Community .
Access to Jack's Hat and Three Sisters is now at risk, dependent on property owners and
conservancy to make a deal.
This too puts more people on fewer trails which affects us all, the habitat and public safety.
Please include the 1984 Trails Network plan in your plans.
Sincerely,
2
Dennis & Cathy Gardner
57 Narcissa Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Ms. Gladstone,
Katie Lozano
Thursday, December 10, 2020 3:17PM
Lisa Gladstone
CC; CityCierk
Re: For Consideration: Landslide Mitigation and Parking and Access meetings
Thank you for your email. The Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project and Preserve
Parking and Access efforts are being prepared in compliance with the City's Trails Network Plan,
Conceptual Trails Plan and Preserve Public Use Master Plan. The Preserve Parking and Access
effort does not propose development internal to the Preserve or on open space land that would
trigger closing existing trails or implementing new conceptual trails, and at this time the Portuguese
Bend Landslide Remediation Project is not anticipated to cause any existing authorized trails to be
relocated. However, if an authorized trail is temporarily closed during construction of the project, the
City will repair and reopen the trail as part of the project. Moreover, both of these City
projects will not result in the permanent closure of the two authorized access points from the
Portuguese Bend Community to the Preserve.
It is the City's practice to identify opportunities during construction projects to implement
the conceptual trails identified within the Conceptual Trails Plan (the trails identified in the Preserve
Trails Plan of the Public Use Master Plan ((PUMP)) already exist). However, in the case of private
development projects, the City cannot require a private property owner to implement a trail on their
private property. In these cases, the City works with the private property owner at the time the
property owner submits a development application to describe the benefits of dedicating the
appropriate easements for trail access and to determine if the property owner is willing to voluntarily
dedicate land for a trail easement. Again, the City cannot require such a trail easement dedication
from a property owner.
Public safety is top priority for the City. The City works directly with the LA County Fire Department
and LA County Sheriff's Department on disaster evacuation, firefighting access, and emergency
preparedness. In fact, the City held a test operation of the Emergency Operations Center in
November in coordination with public safety agencies, and a focus was emergency response
within the Preserve. The network of existing trails throughout the City do offer access in response to
an emergency if warranted.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can provide additional or more specific
information.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
1 d.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time . Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Lisa Gladstone <golisapv@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 9:34AM
To: CC; CityCierk; Katie Lozano
Subject: For Consideration: Landslide Mitigation and Parking and Access meetings
We have lived in Portuguese Bend for 20+ years. We chose this spot because of the direct trail access for
hiking, running and horse riding. Please read the attached letter. Thank you
2
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members:
As a hiker, equestrian and homeowner in the Portuguese Bend community, I am writing to express
concern over the impacts of the Landslide Mitigation Project as well as the parking and access projects.
Encircled as we are by the nature preserves and the public trail systems on all sides, each proposed
project, while possibly worthy, impact us all. Each project encroaches on current trails, habitat and
public health by bringing more people to less and less space. The project mitigation plans do not address
the impact on the horse community and those who wish to continue to recreate safely on the trails. In
1984, the city approved The Trail Network Plan to enhance and maintain the trails. City staff were
directed to watch for opportunity to enhance the trail network where other projects are proposed
and initiated by staff. The plan included the need for disaster evacuation, firefighting access and other
emergency preparedness concerns. The Palos Verdes Loop trail has already been disrupted. Due to
erosion and lack of maintenance, new ways of getting through were created by trail users who then
encroached on private property, which was later closed off. These factors have led to the loss of full
segments of the trail network.
We ask that while you plan both the parking and landslide mitigation projects, as well as any future
projects, you follow the already adopted Trail Network Plan and look to enhance the trail network at
every opportunity. This includes engineering permanent trail routes, canyon crossings, erosion control
and access to trails from the Portuguese Bend Community. Access to Jack's Hat and Three Sisters is now
at risk, dependent on property owners and conservancy to make a deal. This too puts more people on
fewer trails which affects us all, the habitat and public safety. Please include the 1984 Trails Network
plan in your plans.
Sincerely,
Lisa Gladstone and Milton Owens
18 Cinnamon Lane
RPV,CA
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Ms. Taylor,
Katie Lozano
Thursday, December 10, 2020 3:10PM
Joan Taylor
CC; CityCierk
Re: Community response to city projects
Thank you for your email. The Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project and Preserve
Parking and Access efforts are being prepared in compliance with the City's Trails Network Plan,
Conceptual Trails Plan and Preserve Public Use Master Plan. The Preserve Parking and Access
effort does not propose development internal to the Preserve or on open space land that would
trigger closing existing trails or implementing new conceptual trails, and at this time the Portuguese
Bend Landslide Remediation Project is not anticipated to cause any existing authorized trails to be
relocated. However, if an authorized trail is temporarily closed during construction of the project, the
City will repair and reopen the trail as part of the project. Moreover, both of these City
projects will not result in the permanent closure of the two authorized access points from the
Portuguese Bend Community to the Preserve.
It is the City's practice to identify opportunities during construction projects to implement
the conceptual trails identified within the Conceptual Trails Plan (the trails identified in the Preserve
Trails Plan of the Public Use Master Plan ((PUMP)) already exist). However, in the case of private
development projects, the City cannot require a private property owner to implement a trail on their
private property. In these cases, the City works with the private property owner at the time the
property owner submits a development application to describe the benefits of dedicating the
appropriate easements for trail access and to determine if the property owner is willing to voluntarily
dedicate land for a trail easement. Again, the City cannot require such a trail easement dedication
from a property owner.
Public safety is top priority for the City. The City works directly with the LA County Fire Department
and LA County Sheriff's Department on disaster evacuation, firefighting access, and emergency
preparedness. In fact, the City held a test operation of the Emergency Operations Center in
November in coordination with public safety agencies, and a focus was emergency response
within the Preserve. The network of existing trails throughout the City do offer access in response to
an emergency if warranted.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can provide additional or more specific
information.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
1
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Joan Taylor <jtaylor@dhs.lacounty.gov>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 11:44 AM
To: CC; CityCierk; Katie Lozano
Subject: FW: Community response to city projects
From: Joan Taylor <jododge29@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 11 :11 AM
To: Joan Taylor <jtaylor@dhs.lacounty.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Community response to city projects
CAUTION: External Email. Proceed Responsibly .
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: GRACE <jordette@msn .com >
Date: December 10, 2020 at 10:46:18 AM PST
To: Jododge29@yahoo.com
Subject: Community response to city projects
Hi,
Please let save our trails
• Please sign and send the attached letter or rewrite it in your own words .
• Please forward to all your contacts who share your concerns
• All e-mails need to be received no later than 12/14 .
• Address your email to:
cc@ rpvca .gov
cityclerk@ rpvca .gov
2
katiel@rpvca.gov
3
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members:
As a hiker, equestrian and homeowner in the Portuguese Bend community, I am writing to express
concern over the impacts of the Landslide Mitigation Project as well as the parking and access projects. I
am a resident hiker and horse owner for he last 30 years. During this time I have seen a loss of trails and
a decrease in common sense and good manners by many trail users.
Encircled as we are by the nature preserves and the public trail systems on all sides, each proposed
project, while possibly worthy, impact us all. Each project encroaches on current trails, habitat and
public health by bringing more people to less and less space. The project mitigation plans do not address
the impact on the horse community and those who wish to continue to recreate safely on the trails. In
1984, the city approved The Trail Network Plan to enhance and maintain the trails. City staff were
directed to watch for opportunity to enhance the trail network where other projects are proposed
and initiated by staff. The plan included the need for disaster evacuation, firefighting access and other
emergency preparedness concerns. The Palos Verdes Loop trail has already been disrupted. Due to
erosion and lack of maintenance, new ways of getting through were created by trail users who then
encroached on private property, which was later closed off. These factors have led to the loss of full
segments of the trail network.
We ask that while you plan both the parking and landslide mitigation projects, as well as any future
projects, you follow the already adopted Trail Network Plan and look to enhance the trail network at
every opportunity. This includes engineering permanent trail routes, canyon crossings, erosion control
and access to trails from the Portuguese Bend Community. Access to Jack's Hat and Three Sisters is now
at risk, dependent on property owners and conservancy to make a deal. This too puts more people on
fewer trails which affects us all, the habitat and public safety. Please include the 1984 Trails Network
plan in your plans. Mountain bikers and horses need to be separated for the safety of both.
Sincerely,
Joan Taylor
30615 Palos Verdes Drive East
Rancho Palos Verdes Ca 90275
310-514-9077
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Ms. Denise,
Katie Lozano
Thursday, December 10, 2020 3:12PM
Debbie Denise
CC; CityCierk
Re: Trails
Thank you for your email. The Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project and Preserve
Parking and Access efforts are being prepared in compliance with the City's Trails Network Plan,
Conceptual Trails Plan and Preserve Public Use Master Plan. The Preserve Parking and Access
effort does not propose development internal to the Preserve or on open space land that would
trigger closing existing trails or implementing new conceptual trails, and at this time the Portuguese
Bend Landslide Remediation Project is not anticipated to cause any existing authorized trails to be
relocated. However, if an authorized trail is temporarily closed during construction of the project, the
City will repair and reopen the trail as part of the project. Moreover, both of these City
projects will not result in the permanent closure of the two authorized access points from the
Portuguese Bend Community to the Preserve.
It is the City's practice to identify opportunities during construction projects to implement
the conceptual trails identified within the Conceptual Trails Plan (the trails identified in the Preserve
Trails Plan of the Public Use Master Plan ((PUMP)) already exist). However, in the case of private
development projects, the City cannot require a private property owner to implement a trail on their
private property. In these cases, the City works with the private property owner at the time the
property owner submits a development application to describe the benefits of dedicating the
appropriate easements for trail access and to determine if the property owner is willing to voluntarily
dedicate land for a trail easement. Again, the City cannot require such a trail easement dedication
from a property owner.
Public safety is top priority for the City. The City works directly with the LA County Fire Department
and LA County Sheriff's Department on disaster evacuation, firefighting access, and emergency
preparedness. In fact, the City held a test operation of the Emergency Operations Center in
November in coordination with public safety agencies, and a focus was emergency response
within the Preserve. The network of existing trails throughout the City do offer access in response to
an emergency if warranted.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can provide additional or more specific
information.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
1 rJ.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time . Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Debbie Denise <ddmbeach@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 11:05 AM
To: Nathan Zweizig; Katie Lozano; CC
Cc: CityCierk
Subject: Re: Trails
Thanks so much for letting me know, I've attached a PDF version ....
2
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members:
As an equestrian in the Portuguese Bend community, I am writing to express concern over the impacts of
the Landslide Mitigation Project as well as the parking and access projects.
Encircled as we are by the nature preserves and the public trail systems on all sides, each proposed
project, while possibly worthy, impact us all. Each project encroaches on current trails, habitat and public
health by bringing more people to less and less space. The project mitigation plans do not address the
impact on the horse community and those who wish to continue to recreate safely on the trails. In 1984,
the city approved The Trail Network Plan to enhance and maintain the trails. City staff were directed to
watch for opportunity to enhance the trail network where other projects are proposed and initiated
by staff. The plan included the need for disaster evacuation, firefighting access and other emergency
preparedness concerns. The Palos Verdes Loop trail has already been disrupted. Due to erosion and lack
of maintenance, new ways of getting through were created by trail users who then encroached on
private property, which was later closed off. These factors have led to the loss of full segments of the trail
network.
We ask that while you plan both the parking and landslide mitigation projects, as well as any future
projects, you follow the already adopted Trail Network Plan and look to enhance the trail network at
every opportunity. This includes engineering permanent trail routes, canyon crossings, erosion control
and access to trails from the Portuguese Bend Community. Access to Jack's Hat and Three Sisters is now
at risk, dependent on property owners and conservancy to make a deal. This too puts more people on
fewer trails which affects us all, the habitat and public safety. Please include the 1984 Trails Network
plan in your plans.
It's not only us who are counting on you, it's our horses too -we have to keep them safe while having
the trails. Thank you for your consideration. Trails are the only thing keeping us and our horses sane
during this pandemic as well....
Sincerely,
Debbie Denise
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jenaymichou@gmail.com
Wednesday, December 9, 2020 3:04 PM
CityCierk
Parking for Nature Preserve -12/15/20
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members:
As a 35+ year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, I am deeply troubled by the current situation at the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve. It seems like our beautiful Preserve has become the newest social media sensation, and the crowds, parking,
noise and garbage have taken a huge toll on our little city. I remember when you could stroll the bluffs where Trump is
currently situated, before it was developed by the Zuckerman's. I remember the bitter fights then, and the attempts to
save the Palos Verdes Blue butterfly. Then we had Terranea move in, and while a beautiful addition, combined, they
have put a serious strain on Palos Verdes Drive South and the surrounding neighborhoods. We also have the current
housing expansion at the Trump National on the Northern end, which is already expected to bring in an additional 114
plus more daily trips into this pinpoint area.
I live in the Seaview community, and we are negatively effected by this traffic. On the weekend, it has become
increasingly difficult to exit the neighborhood (going either direction). We have seen an influx of people coming to park
at the base of the Ladera Linda steps in order to gain access when the parking lot is closed or full. I see that the Council
is addressing these issues during the 12/15 meeting, and I would like to state that expanding the Ladera Linda/Forrestal
parking would have an extremely detrimental effect on our daily lives and our community. This parking lot is already a
source of frustration. People speed up Forrestal, they still attempt to park in the neighborhood, even with the current
signage. During AYSO season, it is even worse. Adding more spaces to this tiny area is a disaster in the making.
The Council has stated that the land movement is a separate issue from the Preserve usage, but I strongly disagree with
this statement. This is an extremely fragile ecosystem, and this increased use, weight, wear and tear and excess water
are all bearing down in a very focused area. This is not a national park. It is a nature preserve, with the stated goal of"
broad-based ecosystem approach to planning for the protection and perpetuation of biological diversity. The NCCP
identifies and provides for the regional protection of plants, animals, and their habitats, while allowing compatible and
appropriate economic activity." The key here is compatible economic activity. The capacity needs to be
reassessed. There are simply too many people. The areas surrounding the Preserve are not set up to absorb the
overflow of parking. As we have seen at Abalone Cove, charging exorbitant parking does not deter people. Every
weekend this summer, the line to enter that parking lot regularly snaked back past the Fire House. Capacity needs to be
limited inside the Nature Preserve. Parking restrictions need to be tightened. I believe that the only possible method to
alleviate the stress on the surrounding neighborhoods would be to initiate a pilot shuttle program. We should not be
adding parking into the Preserve itself. That directly contradicts the stated mandate of preservation and protection.
The entry gates at Rattlesnake and Burma need to be utilized/installed. Entry times need to be strictly enforced. We
need to protect this land and it's stated goals.
Sincerely,
Jenay Rouimi
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Item 2 Preserve Parking
Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com>
Wednesday, December 9, 2020 11:22 AM
CityCierk; CC
December 15th City Council Meeting
I would like to bring to the attention of the City Council that Cory Linder is once again misleading the City
Council as to the position of the Ladera Linda HOA in reference to Preserve parking at Ladera Linda Park.
In the Staff report it is stated "However, as previously noted, in 2019, the City Council, at the request of
neighboring HOAs, eliminated future Preserve parking at the Ladera Linda Community Center parking lots
when the new project is built."
This is totally false. It is the position of the HOA that provisions be made for Preserve parking in the new Park,
that the Forrestal gate be locked, except for AYSO games, and that Forrestal on both sides, below the
Forrestal gate, be redlined down to the park property.
I would like to point out that this configuration is presently in place and has eliminated the majority of resident's
complaints.
Herb Stark
Ladera Linda
31 0-541-6646
1
From: Katie Lozano
Sent:
To:
Thursday, December 10, 2020 3:22 PM
Laura Feldman
Cc: CC; CityCierk
Subject: Re: Save Our Trails
Hello Ms. Feldman,
Thank you for your email. The Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project and Preserve
Parking and Access efforts are being prepared in compliance with the City's Trails Network Plan,
Conceptual Trails Plan and Preserve Public Use Master Plan. The Preserve Parking and Access
effort does not propose development internal to the Preserve or on open space land that would
trigger closing existing trails or implementing new conceptual trails, and at this time the Portuguese
Bend Landslide Remediation Project is not anticipated to cause any existing authorized trails to be
relocated. However, if an authorized trail is temporarily closed during construction of the project, the
City will repair and reopen the trail as part of the project. Moreover, both of these City
projects will not result in the permanent closure of the two authorized access points from the
Portuguese Bend Community to the Preserve.
It is the City's practice to identify opportunities during construction projects to implement
the conceptual trails identified within the Conceptual Trails Plan (the trails identified in the Preserve
Trails Plan of the Public Use Master Plan ((PUMP)) already exist). However, in the case of private
development projects, the City cannot require a private property owner to implement a trail on their
private property. In these cases, the City works with the private property owner at the time the
property owner submits a development application to describe the benefits of dedicating the
appropriate easements for trail access and to determine if the property owner is willing to voluntarily
dedicate land for a trail easement. Again, the City cannot require such a trail easement dedication
from a property owner.
Public safety is top priority for the City. The City works directly with the LA County Fire Department
and LA County Sheriff's Department on disaster evacuation, firefighting access, and emergency
preparedness. In fact, the City held a test operation of the Emergency Operations Center in
November in coordination with public safety agencies, and a focus was emergency response
within the Preserve. The network of existing trails throughout the City do offer access in response to
an emergency if warranted.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can provide additional or more specific
information.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
1
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Laura Feldman <pbrcl@verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 8:29AM
To: cc@rpv.ca.gov; CityCierk; Katie Lozano
Cc: 'Sheri Hastings'
Subject: Save Our Trails
Portuguese Bend Riding Club
www.pbrcride.com
310-377 -3507
2
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members:
As a hiker, equestrian and homeowner in the Portuguese Bend community, I am writing to express
concern over the impacts of the Landslide Mitigation Project as well as the parking and access projects.
Encircled as we are by the nature preserves and the public trail systems on all sides, each proposed
project, while possibly worthy, impact us all. Each project encroaches on current trails, habitat and
public health by bringing more people to less and less space. The project mitigation plans do not address
the impact on the horse community and those who wish to continue to recreate safely on the trails. In
1984, the city approved The Trail Network Plan to enhance and maintain the trails. City staff were
directed to watch for opportunity to enhance the trail network where other projects are proposed
and initiated by staff. The plan included the need for disaster evacuation, firefighting access and other
emergency preparedness concerns. The Palos Verdes Loop trail has already been disrupted. Due to
erosion and lack of maintenance, new ways of getting through were created by trail users who then
encroached on private property, which was later closed off. These factors have led to the loss of full
segments of the trail network.
We ask that while you plan both the parking and landslide mitigation projects, as well as any future
projects, you follow the already adopted Trail Network Plan and look to enhance the trail network at
every opportunity. This includes engineering permanent trail routes, canyon crossings, erosion control
and access to trails from the Portuguese Bend Community. Access to Jack's Hat and Three Sisters is now
at risk, dependent on property owners and conservancy to make a deal. This too puts more people on
fewer trails which affects us all, the habitat and public safety. Please include the 1984 Trails Network
plan in your plans.
Sincerely,
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Marty Foster < martycrna@cox.net>
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 2:11 PM
CC; CityCierk; Ara Mihranian
Preserve
Tonight you will be considering staff recommendations regarding the preserve.
The staff recommendations do not favor RPV residents.
It is inexplicable that our tax supported city employees don't seem to know or perhaps care about those who pay their
salaries.
In no way does this mean that these employees are anything but good and well meaning people.
Possibly CC can re-order their priorities?
Please protect our community. Adding more parking, shuttles and personnel does nothing to protect us but increases
visitors some of whom are not motivated by fresh air and beautiful vistas rather activities that are deleterious.
You have witnessed the destruction of habitat and the peace of neighborhoods by visitors to the preserve. Please
welcome but limit these visitors.
There are many suggestions put forward to address limitations of visitors so I will not comment except to implore you to
choose one.
Many thanks for all your time, work and service.
Best wishes
Marty Foster
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Foster <bfos@cox.net>
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 2:07 PM
CityCierk
FW: Park and trails
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 2:04PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Park and trails
As a 42 year resident of RPV, I am saddened with the tremendous increase in use of our beautiful parks and trails. It
seems our parks and rec department feels more is better. I do not understand their policy. They are not tasked with
providing increased services for the entire county as they have been doing for quite sometime,but tasked to provide
and improve services for our residents. This policy must be changed and the City Council is the only one that can change
it. If you did a poll today of all RPV residents, I am sure you would find that nearly everyone is dissatisfied with the
present situation and increased services that P and R seem to think is the right way to go. P andR seem to think the way
to make it better is just provide more parking, shuttles etc. you need to make it clear to them that that's not what RPV
citizenry want. Unfortunately the cats out of the bag and is almost uncontrollable. The only solution is limiting access
through permits and limited parking.This steady decline in our quality of life here is distressing and If you don't fix it
now, it will be unfixable soon and we will be like so many other cities with uncontrollable traffic, pollution, and the
crime that goes along with overcrowded conditions.
Bill Foster
32451 Searaven dr
RPV
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad
1 J.
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 1:39 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: PARKING AT DEL CERRO TRAILHEAD
From: Geoff Wainwright <pvgeoff@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 12:50 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: PARKING AT DEL CERRO TRAILHEAD
Dear City Council,
We have lived in the Del Cerro community since 1994 and frequently hike in the Preserve. We financially supported the
Preservation effort at the beginning. I would like to express the following points regarding the Council meeting this
evening:
Regarding converting all or a portion of Del Cerro Park to a parking lot for the preserve, I oppose because:
• Adding a parking lot near the Burma Rd. trailhead is inconsistent with the goal of minimizing traffic congestion at the
end of Crenshaw. It would intensify traffic
congestion in the area that is already experiencing the most severe impacts of traffic problems and noise.
• Del Cerro Park was donated by the Federal Government to the City for use as a neighborhood park in perpetuity, not
as a parking lot.
• The City has invested significant funds to create a beautiful green space for outdoor recreation.
• The park and preserve serve different purposes. The park's intended uses are centered around family and
neighborhood recreation activities, many of which are not
compatible with preserve restrictions: children playing games for exercise and socializing, family picnics, kite flying,
ball/frisbee throwing, neighborly chats, dog
socialization, soccer team practices.
• The park's purposes are equally important as the nature preserve. By using the park for parking space, the City would
be indicating that creating more parking for access to the
preserve is a more important priority than the family/neighborhood recreation that the park supports and encourages-
a philosophy that we respectfully do not agree with.
• Our family has enjoyed the Park over many years as an integral part of our neighborhood experience; parking would
significantly diminish the ambience ofthe neighborhood.
Regarding establishing major trail heads at other locations around the preserve, I support the creation and promotion of
other major trail heads as well as smaller entrances
to the preserve because:
• The preserve is a resource for the entire peninsula (and beyond) and responsibility for access should be shared by all
RPV residents.
• Where possible, trailheads should be established where they are not close to residential areas to avoid negatively
impacting the quality of life of residents.
• Other locations for major trailheads should be created with parking and appropriate amenities to equitably distribute
visitors throughout the 1,400-acre preserve and 73
miles oftrails.
1
• A major trailhead off PV Drive South should be established. The trailhead at city hall should be beautified to encourage
visits to that area.
• Gateway Park off PV Drive South was originally considered the appropriate place for the primary entrance into the
preserve.
• Establishing a pilot shuttle program that transports visitors from city hall to stops along PV Drive South and back to city
hall would be a good way to better distribute visitors
throughout the preserve.
Regarding establishing additional parking within the preserve I oppose because:
• It would require vehicles to drive behind Amber Sky homes, disturbing neighbors with constant noise and excessive
dust.
• The funding agencies unanimously agree that doing so would not be compatible with the City's approved NCCP/HCP
(Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat
Conservation Plan). The preserve habitat configuration was not designed to accommodate a parking area.
Q--would it instead be possible to use the large, existing parking structure at the Rancho del Mar location on Crest
Road?
Thank you for your serious consideration of these comments.
Regards,
Geoff Wainwright
24 Crestwind Drive, Del Cerro community
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 1:37 PM
CityCierk
FW: Preserve Parking
From: Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 1:15 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: l.j.dewey@cox.net
Subject: Preserve Parking
We do not think that opening Forrestal Dr to additional parking for Preserve visitors is in the best interest of our
neighborhood. We strongly oppose creating an additional city expenditure to provide shuttle service to some
designated parking area. If the city has any surplus funds we should consider reducing the unfounded pension liability.
A resident has proposed the idea of leasing the vacant lot on the school district's property in the Del Cerro area for
overflow parking. Consider establishing a walking trail from there to the Preserve.
Thank you,
Gene and Lynne Dewey
Vigilance Dr
Sent from my iPad
:J.
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear RPV City Council.
supriya mathur <supmathur@hotmail.com>
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 1 :33 PM
CityCierk
Opposition to Tarragon parking lot
I'm writing this letter to oppose the proposal of putting a public parking lot on Tarragon. I think this is going to have
many adverse effects on our community. I have lived on Barkentine Road since 2011 and have already seen a fair
amount of uptick in traffic. I feel this gives an opportunity for having worsening of our peaceful environment along with
increased threat to our security. I already see many people who are trying to go to Abalone cove parking in our
neighborhood on busy days which also causes a risk to public safety as they try to cross the PV drive west which is not
friendly to foot traffic based on how busy and fast the cars tend to be on that road. Putting a public parking in a
residential neighborhood will threaten the sense of peace and privacy which exemplifies our wonderful neighborhood
and why we purchased a home here.
I'm not quite sure what would be achieved by having a parking lot here besides destroying our neighborhood and
putting us at risk of increased noise, litter, trash and pollution and risk of crime.
I implore you to not consider putting a parking lot on this particular site and feel that all our neighborhood is
unanimously united in their opposition to this proposal .
Sincerely
Sunil and Supriya Mathur Gianchandani MD
3161 Barkentine Road
1 :1.
From: edahlin@verizon.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 1:29 PM
CC; CityCierk To:
Subject: Use of Lot at 6359 Tarragon Rd. for Trails Public Parking
Importance: High
Dear RPV City Council:
At this evening's meeting, you are considering a measure to use Vacant Lot 6359 as a parking lot to provide parking for
the 3 Sisters Reserve. By now, you have heard from many of those in our neighborhood opposing this. Allow us to add
our concern to those who have already expressed their own.
1. This is a small, residential neighborhood with no through streets. Many of us purchased our homes here because
we found that attractive. The addition of a parking lot significantly changes the character and attractiveness of
the neighborhood because of the increased traffic and collateral damage that always seems to bring.
2. That lot is adjacent to those that didn't purchase their homes overlooking a parking lot. This will surely
negatively impact their property values, and I believe those of the neighborhood.
3. The increase in traffic, trash, noise, and safety a major concern. Consider Del Cerro with visitors traipsing
through yards, leaving trash on homeowners property etc.
4. Consider protecting the habitat by not encouraging and making more convenient its overuse. There are other
trails, parks and scenic areas for all of us to enjoy that have existing infrastructure to varying degrees: parking,
restrooms, trash removal, staffing. And, that doesn't seem to be handled well already. A recent hike to Shoreline
Park with overflowing trash cans was eye-opening. Reporting to the staff in the building there wasn't received
with a lot of interest or concern, to put it mildly. So, we are having trouble taking care of those areas, let's go
ahead and add another one?
I hope for the wisdom of the council to not pave paradise and put up a parking lot. I am sure none of the council
members would welcome this in their own neighborhoods. We don't in ours.
Sincerely,
Ellen & John Dahlin
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Stephanie Valencia
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 12:33 PM
billmelandlindsey@cox.net
CC; CityCierk
Subject: RE: Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Mitigation Status Report-December 15th Meeting
Hello Mr. Costley,
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence with the December 15 City Council agenda item on
Preserve parking and access.
Thank you,
Stephanie Valencia
Recreation Specialist
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Office
310-544-5260
Parks Make Life Better!
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID ·19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical
distancing guidelines . Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appo intm ent in advance
by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your vi sit. Walk-up s are limited to one person at a time . Please note that our response to
your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: The Costleys [mailto:billmelandlindsey@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 11:53 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca .gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov >; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov >
Subject: Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Mitigation Status Report-December 15th Meeting
Dear RPV City Council Members, City Manager and City Clerk,
As a resident of the Ladera Linda community, I am firmly opposed to the Staff Report providing additional parking at:
Ladera Linda Community Center and Forrestal Drive; Del Cerro Park; within the Preserve; Gateway Park; and at 6359
Tarragon Road . And I definitely do not want our tax dollars being spent on a shuttle bus ferrying visitors around the City.
Please do not turn our community into a tourist destination more than it already is.
Sincerely,
Bill Costley
1 ~.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
12/15/20
Dear City Council,
Bella manor < bellamanor@aol.com >
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 12:03 PM
CityCierk
public parking proposal to 6359 Tarragon Rd
We are writing to express our strong opposition to potential public parking at
6359 Tarragon Road . While the local community may be unable to prevent
development, that in itself will be detrimental to the area, nearly all residents in
the Tarragon, Barkentine neighborhoods are completely opposed to the potential
public parking at 6359 Tarragon Road. This will cause traffic, safety problems,
noise and disturbance resulting from use, loss of privacy, fear of crime
and potentially lower the property values of the existing community.
We urge you to disapprove the proposed public parking and from discussions
with our neighbors, We know our opinions are shared by many who have not
managed to attend meeting or write letters and emails. Please let us have a
peaceful and quiet neighborhood .
Thank you for your continued service and support of our communities.
Best regards,
Christina Atencio and Paul Fulton
6320 Tarragon Rd
RPV Ca 90275
Sent from my iPhone
1 :1.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Ms. Barr,
Stephanie Valencia
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 11:37 AM
lmu95x2@yahoo.com
CC; CityCierk
RE: Rejecting recommendations for Preserve and land use
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence with the December 15 City Council
agenda item on Preserve parking and access.
Thank you,
Stephanie Valencia
Recreation Specialist
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Office
310 -544-5260
Parks Make Life Better!
City Hall is open to th e publi c durin g reg ul ar bu sine ss hour s. To help prevent the spread ofCO VI D-19 , vi sit ors are requir ed to wear face co verin gs and adh ere to ph ys ical
di stancin g guid elin es . So me empl oyees are wo rkin g on rotati on and ma y be workin g remotely. If yo u nee d to visit City Hall , pl ease sc hedul e an app ointment in advance
by callin g th e app ro pri ate depa rtm ent and foll ow all pos ted dir ec ti ons durin g yo ur v isit. Walk-up s are limit ed to one perso n at a tim e . Pl ease note th at our respo nse to
yo ur inqui ry could be delaye d. For a li st of departm ent ph one numb ers, v isit th e Staff Direc tory on th e City we bsite .
From: Lori Barr [mailto :lmu9 5x2@yahoo .com ]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:46 AM
To: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca .gov >; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov>; CC <CC@ r pvca.gov >
Subject: Rejecting recommendations for Preserve and land use
To Whom It May Concern:
As a resident and homeowner in Ladera Linda since 2014, I am emailing you with my
strong rejection of the staff recommendations for land use for the following
reasons:
1) Since moving into the Ladera Linda community, I have experienced increased road
traffic, trash dumping, and misuse of the local spaces including trails, the Ladera Linda
community center, and public spaces such as the park at the corner of Forrestal and
Palos Verdes Drive South.
2) Visitors to the Ladera Linda Community Center and Preserve frequently speed up and
down the hill, disregard parking signs, leave garbage behind, are seen drinking,
smoking, and engaging in other illicit behaviors day and night.
1 :;_,
3) I have witnessed couples having sex in their cars parked near the paddle tennis
courts, and young people hiking up the Forrestal road, behind the gate, with backpacks
and blankets right at sundown. I can only deduce that they are not intending to bird
watch or take in the beautiful views, rather they are looking for a remote spot to hang
out. This is dangerous for themselves and our small neighborhood. Opening that gate for
parking will only increase these occurrences.
Our small community is quiet and beautiful. Although we want others to enjoy the
natural beauty of the Peninsula, I implore our civic leaders to come up with a solution
that benefits all and maintains public safety and preserves our public spaces.
Respectfully,
Lori Barr
3678 Vigilance Drive
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Debbie and Mark Roberts,
Stephanie Valencia
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:52 AM
mark.roberts3456@gmail.com
CC; CityCierk
RE: 6359 Tarragon Parking
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence with the December 15 City Council agenda item on
Preserve parking and access.
Thank you,
Stephanie Valencia
Recreation Specialist
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Office
310-544-5260
Parks Make Life Better!
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are
required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation
and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the
appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time.
Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
-----Original Message-----
From: mark roberts [mailto:mark.roberts3456@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 8:37 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: 6359 Tarragon Parking
Mayor & RPV City Console,
Pertaining to the proposal of parking for 30 spots at the 6359 Tarragon road location.
Please reconsider this due to;
1-Traffic issues.
2-Fiood plain with history of mud slides.
3-SC&E location with access to utilities.
4-Verizon terminal junction boxes.
5-Security to local residents.
6-Possible fire hazard issues with increased people.
7-Wildlife impact.
8-Diminished property values.
9-No cross walks near proposed parking for PV Drive South.
1 fl.
This proposal effects the Upper and Lower Abalone Cove Residents, Saint Peters by the Sea Church, Residents North of
proposed location and Souther California Edison. Have they been told of this proposal?
We received a letter about this meeting on Saturday 12/12/2020 which gave us one business day to gather our thoughts
and respond to this issue.
This shows lack of respect to the RPV residents.
The problems that effect the Crenshaw and Crest drive area and what that poor planning has done, will be duplicated at
this location.
Please respect why we live here.
We don't want additional crime.
Please respect the people that work at this location. Which has 24/7 access to the SC&E Sub Station. They bring in large
equipment on full size tractor trailers.
Especially when there is power failures
They need to get in fast.
We have a critical drainage system that cannot be compromised in any way.
There is to many factors to be considered at this location and your team should look at other alternatives.
Regards
Debbie & Mark Roberts
6353 Tarragon Road
Rancho Palos Verdes 90275
310-502-8618
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Ms. Luthi,
Stephanie Valencia
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:50 AM
brlinrpv@aol.com
CC; CityCierk
RE: Residents of Del Cera traffic issues
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence with the December 15 City Council agenda item on
Preserve parking and access.
Thank you,
Stephanie Valencia
Recreation Specialist
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Office
310-544-5260
Parks Make Life Better!
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are
required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation
and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the
appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time.
Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
-----Original Message-----
From: AOL [mailto:brlinrpv@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 9:10PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Residents of Del Cera traffic issues
To Whom it May Concern
I have been a 35+Year resident of the Del Cerro neighborhood and a Board member for many years ... going back to the
years where our HOA fought to be heard when the Preserve first was formed re the escalating traffic issues that have
immensely grown over the years since. I say, enough!!! Come visit our neighborhood over the weekends, accessed only
through the main thoroughfare if Crenshaw Blvd. The parkers now are parked bumper to bumper all of the way down
Crenshaw to Crestridge. What happened to the original proposal of accommodating parking for the hikers within the
Preserve?? I was at that meeting and it was eventually shelved because of a few VERY vocal residents within the
Portuguese Bend neighborhood and the fact that the mayor of RPV at the time lived within that neighborhood. A very
dangerous traffic situation has been created here for which the City of RPV will be liable.
Bonnie Luthi
#4 Amber Sky Drive
1 d.
.Sent from my iPhone
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Ms. Wong,
Stephanie Valencia
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:47 AM
kiwi_esq@ hotmail.com
CC; CityCierk
RE: Agenda Item 2 -proposal to study additional parking alternatives -specifically at
Ladera Linda Community Center and Forrestal Drive.
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence with the December 15 City Council agenda item on
Preserve parking and access .
Thank you,
Stephanie Valencia
Recreation Specialist
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Office
310-544-5260
Parks Make Life Better!
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical
di stancing guide lin es . Some emp loyees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, p lease schedule an appointment in advance
by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time . Please note that our response to
your inquiry could be delayed. For a li st of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Di rectory on the City website.
From: Amanda Wong [mailto:kiwi esq@hotmail.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 12:19 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca .gov>
Cc: Amanda Wong <kiwi esq@hotmail.com >; craig german@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 2 -proposal to study additional parking alternatives -specifically at Ladera Linda Community
Center and Forrestal Drive.
Dear Council Members and Staff,
Thank you for the opportunity to share with you my observations and experiences as a neighbor of Ladera
Linda Community Center ("LLCC")and the Preserve. I have been telecommuting from home since March and
have had a significant amount of time to track visitor activity in the area.
First, traffic and visitation patterns have been very different in the past nine months. With COVID restrictions
preventing AYSO and group activities, we do not see the heavy surges of vehicles all coming in or out at the
same time. Similarly, we do not see the large 50+ groups of hikers converging on the trail en masse . Rather,
there is a constant stream of couples or smaller groups (5 -10 individuals) usually on the weekends.
Second, the majority of hikers and visitors to our neighborhood are respectful and friendly. Seeing them and
talking to them about the Preserve brings us joy and re~inds us on a daily basis how lucky we are to liv "J •
such a pristine environment. However, there is a sizable group of visitors who are not respectful of the
neighborhood or the Preserve and my concern is that increasing parking facilities, facilitating access and
further promoting the Preserve (or a future new community center) on social media, will increase the number
of visitors overall and bring with them more loud, rude, disrespectful and dangerous visitors. The City should
not do anything that increases the visitation to our neighborhood.
For example, last weekend as I was gardening in my front yard, I observed a van park directly next to the "NO
AYSO OR PRESERVE PARKING" sandwich board sign on Pirate. I watched a family unload their bikes, disregard
the sign, and head straight up behind the Forrestal gates to go biking. Shortly afterward another car parked in
front of my home. I paid attention since my home was burglarized a couple of years ago and the suspects
parked in front of my home and surveilled it for a while before breaking in. On this occasion, the occupants
lingered for a while, then two women got out ofthe car with a dog, which they led over to urinate on my
mailbox, then headed up Forrestal. I walked to my side garden to watch whether they headed down into LLCC
or up into the Preserve when they turned back and confronted me shouting expletives at me for following
them. I tried to explain to them that I was simply making observations to report at an upcoming city council
meeting and that visitors parking in the neighborhood has been an ongoing problem, there is a "NO PRESERVE
PARKING" sign situated on the street, and that preserve parking is situated down at LLCC. They told me that I
should have confronted them directly to tell them not to park on Pirate and ask them not to have their dog
urinate on my mailbox. I pointed out that direct confrontation was unlikely to have been well received, since
they were swearing and insulting me for simply watching them from my yard. I am just glad my children were
inside the house at the time as they would have been terrified. The point here is that visitors ignore the "NO
AYSO OR PRESERVE PARKING" sign and park in the neighborhood even when there is ample parking space
down at Ladera Linda, and it is not fair or realistic to expect residents to enforce an informal
no parking" zone.
On another occasion a man parked in front of our home and entered our open garage in the middle of the
day. I was in the kitchen and hearing noises in the garage, alerted my husband. When confronted by my
husband, he stammered some excuse about meeting his girlfriend for a hike on the trail and just looking for
some motor oil for his truck, before fleeing the scene.
A couple of months ago we observed night hikers come down the Pirate trail after dark-shining flashlights in
my backyard and at my house. Shortly afterward we saw flashlights moving about the LL community
center and called the sheriff to investigate. It turned out that the night hikers had returned to find their car
locked in the LL parking lot.
Now, when I take my children on hikes or to ride their bikes up Forrestal we see discarded face masks on the
road, and just this weekend we observed a man scrambling up the cliffs to retrieve a crashed drone and a
group of rowdy teenage hikers off the trail, trying to slide down one of the concrete drains on the hillside.
We love this community, we love our neighborhood and we love the Preserve and LL community center. We
welcome visitors, but the fact is that there will always be some percentage of visitors who are disrespectful of
the environment and the neighborhood. All we are asking is that we do not increase the burden on our
residential community by making decisions that increase the number of visitors.
My recommendations to the Council and staff are as follows:
1. Any decisions with respect to Ladera Linda community center, the Preserve access and parking should
be made with a goal of not increasing traffic or visitation to the area.
2
2. If a parking study is to be conducted, that it be postponed until after COVID restrictions are lifted and
traffic and visitation levels return to normal. It makes no sense to expend time and money gathering
data that is not representative of regular activity levels in Ladera Linda.
3. Consider red-curbing Pirate to Sea Raven. The red curbing on Forrestal has worked very well and
would serve as a deterrent to day-visitors considering parking in the neighborhood.
4. Add another temporary NO AYSO OR PRESERVE PARKING sign so we can have one on either side of
Pirate. Note-I am NOT in favor of adding more permanent street signs. There are approximately 14
street signs already in the proximity of Forrestal and Pirate and they are a visual blight. We do not
need more.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Amanda Wong
Recommendation:
1) Review the holistic Preserve parking analysis and consider taking action as follows:
a. Provide direction on whether Staff should pursue studying additional parking
alternatives at:
i. Ladera Linda Community Center and Forrestal Drive
ii. Del Cerro Park
iii. Within the Preserve
iv. Gateway Park
v. City-owned 6359 Tarragon Rd. (McCarrel Canyon)
b. Approve a 90-day pilot shuttle program to augment public access to key Preserve areas
c. Receive and file an update on a traffic and parking analysis for the Preserve
d. Provide direction on Upper Pt. Vicente/Civic Center beautification near Alta Vicente
Reserve
e. Receive and file update on analysis of Preserve capacity levels.
2) Receive and file report on Web and Social Media Campaign, including Search Engine
Optimization (SEQ)
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Mr. Bryan,
Stephanie Valencia
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:46 AM
pvbryans@gmail.com
CC; CityCierk
RE : Del Cerro Parking
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence with the December 15 City Council agenda item on
Preserve parking and access.
Thank you,
Stephanie Valencia
Recreation Specialist
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Office
310-544-5260
Parks Make Life Better!
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical
distancing guide lines . Some employees are working on rotation and may be worki ng remote ly . If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance
by calling the appropriate department and fo l low all posted direction s during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time . Please note that our response to
your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Di rectory on the City website.
From: Bill Bryan [mailto:pvbryans@gmail.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 7 :37AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Del Cerro Parking
I am a parishioner of St John Fisher. When we use the Crenshaw exit on Saturday or Sunday it is impossible to
see pedestrians on the sidewalk or cars going north on Crenshaw because cars are parked adjacent to the
driveway apron , We have to exit very slowly and hope that no one is speeding on Crenshaw or running on the
sidewalk. There should be no a parking area on each side of the driveway apron .
William Bryan
2324 Carriage Drive
Rolling Hills Estates , Ca 90274
310-548-0580
1 J.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Ms. Ringer,
Stephanie Valencia
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:39 AM
dianedringer@gmail.com
CC; CityCierk
RE: Del Cerro Hiking Issues
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence with the December 15 City Council agenda item on
Preserve parking and access.
Thank you,
Stephanie Valencia
Recreation Specialist
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Office
310-544-5260
Parks Make Life Better!
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical
distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to vis it City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance
by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are l imited to one person at a time . Please note that our response to
your inquiry could be delayed . For a list of department phone numbers, visit the St aff Directory on the City website .
From: Diane Ringer [mailto:dianedringer@gmail.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 7:42AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Del Cerro HOA <DeiCerro HOA@hotmail.com >
Subject: Del Cerro Hiking Issues
Dear City Council ofRPV,
First, we would like to thank you for taking steps to help mitigate the overcrowding and congested
hiking in Del Cerro neighborhood.
It is much appreciated.
It seems we keep going around and around discussing the same problems ... too many people trying to
hike in an adjacent quiet neighborhood that was NEVER meant to be a hub for literally thousands of
hikers.
Limiting parking on Crenshaw has been a help to some but not for all our Del Cerro neighbors, those
whose homes face Crenshaw Blvd.
Restricting the time people can park on Crenshaw would be helpful but we understand parking
1 J .
enforcement would then be required.
Some ideas that have been floated:
A reservations system, parking fees, preserve capacity limits, hiring parking enforcement personnel,
building a parking lot in Del Cerro Park.
It seems that many of the issues would be cleared up if a bit of asphalt was laid down and a port-a-
potty were established at the Gateway entrance.
We are STRONGLY against a parking lot at the Del Cerro Park ... when there is the Gateway Entrance
parking area that could easily be established without harming that neighborhood and improve Del
Cerro's situation.
The Gateway entrance area seems to make the most sense and would help everyone by spreading out
the volume of hikers.
Looking at Google Earth one can see that the closest home to Gateway area is about 500 feet away
whereas Del Cerro homes are 10-20 feet from parking and hikers.
We all know that the Preserve is a magnificent area and we truly want to share it... but not to the
detriment of our peace, quiet and safety. The traffic on the weekends is unruly, at best.. .. with constant
U-turns and people criss-crossing mid street all day long.
We realize your efforts to get hikers to other points of entry into the preserve, but there are no real
trails near RPV City Hall ... and the hikers have already figured that out, so this is not helping.
The hiker load desperately needs to be spread out or, regrettably, shut down the preserve.
Having Del Cerro and the other neighboring housing tracts suffer the brunt of the hoards is not fair or
just.
Thank you again for your work in solving this problem.
Respectfully,
Diane & George Ringer
# 1 Crestwind Drive
Del Cerro
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Mr. Hummel,
Stephanie Valencia
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10 :37 AM
ecarloshum@gmail.com
CC; CityCierk
RE : December 15th City Council Meeting
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence with the December 15 City Council agenda item on
Preserve parking and access.
Thank you,
Stephanie Valencia
Recreation Specialist
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Office
310-544 -5260
Parks Make Life Better!
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors are required to wear face coverin gs and adhere to physical
distancing guidelines . Some emp loyees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, p lease schedu le an appointment in advance
by ca l ling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to
your inquiry could be de layed. For a li st of department phone numbers, visit the St aff Directory on the City website.
From: edmundo hummel [mailto:ecarloshum@gmail.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 7:44AM
To: Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com >
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca .gov >; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com > <mickeyrodich@gmail.com >; Don Bell
<dwbrpv@gmail.com >; Amanda Wong <kiwi esq@hotmail.com >; Herb Stark <stearman@juno .com >; Diane Mills
<dianebmills@gmail.com >; Jessica Vlaco <vlacoS@cox.net > <vlacoS@cox.net >; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>;
Martha Foster <martycrna@gmail.com >; Jack Fleming <jjfleming2000@yahoo.com >; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov>;
Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov >
Subject: Re: December 15th City Council Meeting
Dear Council Members and Staff,
My wife and I have lived in Ladera Linda for 8 years and moved here, in large part, because of the PV Nature
Preserve. In those years, we've hiked the Preserve trails on a weekly basis and have seen a noticeable
degradation including trash, vandalism, "pirate" or illegal trails and increasing numbers of people parking in
residential neighborhoods, including Ladera Linda.
You're all aware of how residents are experiencing a "perfect storm" of a large number of people off work due
to the pandemic and social media causing a noticeable uptick in the number of visitors to the Preserve.
1 J .
I understand when the Preserve was created, it was stipulated parking would be provided for visitors, but I'm
certain the intention wasn't to accommodate unchecked numbers of people requiring the City to take on the
burden of either building infrastructure and providing shuttles or enlisting local churches and PVPUSD to
provide overflow parking. Most importantly, I can't imagine the intent was to force residents to deal with an
unlimited number of visitors diminishing their quality of life. Municipat State and National parks are all
dealing with the same problem and are capping visitation numbers, increasing fees and not adding to the
existing built capacity.
It would be a mistake for this City to INCREASE parking capacity. The concept of "induced demand" is well
known to developers and planners, meaning that as you increase capacity, you increase demand. Provide
more parking and more people will visit.
According to previous staff reports, there are 213 (street and lot) parking spaces at Ladera Linda (374 if you
include Founders Park, Marilyn Ryan Park and street parking on Trump Drive). At Del Cerro, there are
currently 80 street spots on Crenshaw Blvd. with 16 in the park for a total of 96. In totat there
are 470 parking spots either adjacent or close to the Preserve. This is only for the four inland areas of the
Preserve and doesn't include additional parking for other areas.
By comparison, the coastal adjacent Bolsa Chica State Conservation Area in Huntington Beach, with lAOO
contiguous acres, provides two parking lots totaling 60 parking spots. There is no residential parking and
neither Huntington Beach nor the State provides a shuttle service to the Conservation Area.
It would likewise be a mistake to create additional problems at the "Gateway Park" location. The issues at Del
Cerro and Ladera Linda need to be resolved AT those locations. Development on an active landslide, adjacent
to a busy roadway (PV South), across from ocean access makes absolutely no sense. People WILL park there
and cross busy PV South to access Portuguese Bend, Sacred Cove and Abalone Cove beaches and I believe the
City WILL incur liability ifthis site is developed.
In summation, I would ask that the Council consider the following approach:
1. Do NOT add parking capacity. There is already sufficient parking throughout the City for the number of
people the Preserves can accommodate.
2. Do NOT provide a shuttle service.
3. Consider Implementing a permit process for visitors on-line with enforcement in the Preserve provided by
the existing contract with the Sheriff's Department.
4. Work with neighborhood associations to institute permit parking in the impacted residential areas.
The PV Nature Preserve is a precious resource and must be protected, not just for residents, but for
everyone. Likewise, residents must also be protected from the impacts of unchecked visitation to the
Preserve.
Thank you for your service and consideration,
Edmundo Hummel
On Mon, Dec 14,2020 at 10:14 PM Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council Members,
2
We have been talking about restricting parking at Ladera Linda Park for years now, so you may be tired of hearing
about this issue. However, due to it's (parking) importance as it relates to the overall (LLP) plan, I'm going to touch on it
anyway.
First let me state, I am not opposed to visitors, as we have them now and that will continue. What I am opposed to is
overloading our community past the saturation point. While that is a subjective term, there has to be some
reasonableness on what we can take. Additional parking at (or near) this particular site (LLP) could very well bring us to
that reality. I see it now, with the an mostly inactive LL site, with parking limited; that on the weekends the park, as well
as surrounding trails, become impacted. Imagine this scenario, with a rebuilt park facility,advertised heavily on social
media and convenient parking for many more. As a result, you running the risk of overloading the surrounding
community's with an infrastructure unable to support the predictable increase in visitors. Needless to say I am
vehemently opposed to parking placed anywhere other than on the LLP property as it will be constructed.
That brings me to the Gateway issue. As I understand it, part of your parking plan would encompass a large parcel of
land behind the gate in the slide area off PVS. I have two issues with this, first what kind of maintenance plan would you
create with a graded area in that tortuous land, already full of crevasses, in an active wet slide zone? You already see
what we are confronted with on the adjoining 0.8 mile of continually moving roadway. Secondly, the coast line would
also become adversely affected, as increased numbers, created by convenient, available parking, would descend on the
ocean-side trails while crossing the PVS, many with family's accompanied by little children. Add to this additional trash
and, by a few, disrespect for the land. Not all folks care about our PV home as we all do. I'm hiking in this area weekly
and see this with my own eyes. People wonder all over the place.
To conclude, I feel that the top responsibility's of our City Council, as well as Recreation and Parks, is the care and the
well being of our residents and the protection of our fragile environment. A Gateway Park parking plan serves neither.
So I ask, when weighing your decisions, please consider all the feedback (literally over the years) you have received on
the restricted parking option(s). This community plea has been made for good reason.
I have lived in Ladera Linda for 50 years, and in that time I have yet to see a project as impactful as the revised Park. To
me, as well as to many others, in our community, the limited parking issue is a major component of that plan.
Thank you for your consideration in this manner.
Regards,
Bill Schurmer
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 8:33 AM
CityCierk
FW: Agenda Item 2 -proposal to study additional parking alternatives -specifically at
Ladera Linda Community Center and Forrestal Drive
From: edmundo hummel <ecarloshum@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 7:37AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: edmundo hummel <ecarloshum@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 2-proposal to study additional parking alternatives-specifically at Ladera Linda Community
Center and Forrestal Drive
Dear Council Members and Staff,
My wife and I have lived in Ladera Linda for 8 years and moved here, in large part, because of the PV Nature
Preserve. In those years, we've hiked the Preserve trails on a weekly basis and have seen a noticeable
degradation including trash, vandalism, "pirate" or illegal trails and increasing numbers of people parking in
residential neighborhoods, including Ladera Linda.
You're all aware of how residents are experiencing a "perfect storm" of a large number of people off work due
to the pandemic and social media causing a noticeable uptick in the number of visitors to the Preserve.
I understand when the Preserve was created, it was stipulated parking would be provided for visitors, but I'm
certain the intention wasn't to accommodate unchecked numbers of people requiring the City to take on the
burden of either building infrastructure and providing shuttles or enlisting local churches and PVPUSD to
provide overflow parking. Most importantly, I can't imagine the intent was to force residents to deal with an
unlimited number of visitors diminishing their quality of life. Municipal, State and National parks are all
dealing with the same problem and are capping visitation numbers, increasing fees and not adding to the
existing built capacity.
It would be a mistake for this City to INCREASE parking capacity. The concept of "induced demand" is well
known to developers and planners, meaning that as you increase capacity, you increase demand. Provide
more parking and more people will visit.
According to previous staff reports, there are 213 (street and lot) parking spaces at Ladera Linda (374 if you
include Founders Park, Marilyn Ryan Park and street parking on Trump Drive). At Del Cerro, there are
currently 80 street spots on Crenshaw Blvd. with 16 in the park for a total of 96. In total, there are 470
parking spots either adjacent or close to the Preserve. This is only for the four inland areas of the Preserve
and doesn't include additional parking for other areas.
1
By comparison, the coastal adjacent Balsa Chica State Conservation Area in Huntington Beach, with 1,400
contiguous acres, provides two parking lots totaling 60 parking spots. There is no residential parking and
neither Huntington Beach nor the State provides a shuttle service to the Conservation Area.
It would likewise be a mistake to create additional problems at the "Gateway Park" location. The issues at Del
Cerro and Ladera Linda need to be resolved AT those locations. Development on an active landslide, adjacent
to a busy roadway (PV South), across from ocean access makes absolutely no sense. People WILL park there
and cross busy PV South to access Portuguese Bend, Sacred Cove and Abalone Cove beaches and I believe the
City WILL incur liability if this site is developed.
In summation, I would ask that the Council consider the following approach:
1. Do NOT add parking capacity. There is already sufficient parking throughout the City for the number of
people the Preserves can accommodate.
2. Do NOT provide a shuttle service.
3. Consider Implementing a permit process for visitors on-line with enforcement in the Preserve provided by
the existing contract with the Sheriff's Department.
4. Work with neighborhood associations to institute permit parking in the impacted residential areas.
The PV Nature Preserve is a precious resource and must be protected, not just for residents, but for
everyone. Likewise, residents must also be protected from the impacts of unchecked visitation to the
Preserve.
Thank you for your service and consideration,
Edmundo Hummel
2
From: Lori Trull <loritrull@ymail.com>
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 2:42 PM
CityCierk
Sent:
To:
Subject: Re:parking lot proposal on Tarragon Road
City parking lot
The absolute lack of appreciation of the cities residents is appalling evidenced by sending a letter 3 days before a council
meeting on a very important project that highly effects upper abalone cove residents is infuriating. While during a
pandemic, the holiday season and a state wide order of no gatherings of people in public places. I find this very
inconsiderate of council members to try to sneak this agenda in at this time.
I pay high taxes to live where I live for its beauty, lack of people, trail access, quiet atmosphere and somewhat clean air
quality.
I would like to address the following problems:
1. Just the mere fact of increasing crowds on the trails and gatherings in the parking lot with COVID-19 creates a
health hazard. 2. I find peace and safety walking the trails, but with increased foot traffic this parking lot
would bring, plus all kinds of strangers in the area is an absurd risk to the preservation and safety of the trails
and our neighborhood. Abalone cove beach trails already contain trash, erosion of the hillside and
vagrants. That would happen on these trails as well. I would no longer feel safe walking these trails alone
3. Additionally the increased noise in and of itself is a nuisance. We already put up
with sirens, motorists, and motor cycles which disturb our peace. To think about the possible noise of car doors
shutting, vehicles starting, zooming out onto PV Drive South and stopping traffic to get into this proposed lot is
very disturbing. 4. Decreased home values-If I ever think of selling and we have this parking
lot practically nextdoor, our safe cui de sac will now be open access to strangers, molesters, and robbers and will
provide a quick get away route. This street will no longer be a cui de sac. 5. Increase
pollution Our air quality has been poor due to factors beyond our control. But bringing more people
into this area will only make the air quality worse. 6. The city has already built a multi
million dollar drainage project on this proposed lot, nothing should be built here. No homes have been allowed
building privileges either. 7. Potential fire risk by smokers discarding their trash, in the
parking lot or on the trails.
I am thoroughly against this city furthering their profits at the expense of the residents emotional and physical health by
potentially destroying any peace, safety, quality of air and noise pollution, potential crime, littering, potential COVID-19
risk exposure and fire dangers brought forth from the dangers associated with a parking lot in between homes in to
abalone cove and adjacent neighborhoods which surround the beautiful natural land conservancy we the people have
fought so hard to protect from projects like this proposed city parking lot.
Sincerely,
Lori Trull
6341 Tarragon Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. 90275
310-947-1748
Loritrull@ymail.com
1
Thank You,
Lori Trull, M.A., Clinical Psychology
Licensed Marriage and Family Psychotherapist & Certified EMDR Clinician
310-947-1748
LMFT.Lori.Trull@gmail.com
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:11 AM
CityCierk
FW: Reserve Parking
From: Judy Hildebrand <judbabe7@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:08 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Diane Mills
<dianebmills@gmail.com>
Subject: Reserve Parking
RPV Council,
Eliminate parking at Gateway Park because of safety issues. Refer to Mickey Rodich and Barry Hildebrand's emails.
Thank you,
Judy Hildebrand
Ladera Linda Board Member
Sent from my iPhone
1 d.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
cjeungmills@cox.net cjeungmills@cox.net <cjeungmills@cox.net>
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 9:56 AM
cc
Ara Mihranian; CityCierk
Ladera Linda -parking for trail
We've lived in the Ladera Linda neighborhood for 55 years. Since the Forrestal gate area has been used for parking
(mostly for soccer and parties), the traffic and parking in our neighborhood (in spite of signs clearing stating there is no
parking), traffic and noise has increased dramatically.
Opening up the Forrestal area for parking on a daily basis will create a nightmare for us. It is already impossible to leave
the neighborhood when soccer games are going on. Running shuttle buses will not help things.
At the very least, parking should be restricted to the Forrestal parking lot and the curbs on Forrestal should be painted
red.
Please consider the fact that this is a residential area. There is an expectation of quiet and not living in a traffic way or
party area.
Sincerely,
Roger Mills & Carol Jeung-Mills (Vigilance Drive)
1 2.
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 9:05 AM
AI and Kathy Edgerton
Cc: Nathan Zweizig
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Parking Mitigation Status comment letter from PVPLC
PVPLC Letter_2020.12.15 Preserve Parking.pdf
From: Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 12:08 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Carolynn Petru <carolynn.petru@gmail.com>;
Randy Harwood <randykharwood@gmail.com>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>
Subject: Parking Mitigation Status comment letter from PVPLC
Good afternoon, City Council,
The Land Conservancy submits the attached comment letter in response to the Preserve Parking Mitigation Status
Report for your consideration.
Regards,
Adrienne
Adrienne Mohan
Executiv e D irector
Palos Verdes Peninsu la Land Conservancy
916 Si lv er Spur Road #207
Ro lli ng Hi ll s Estates, CA 90274
www.pvplc .org
(310) 541-7613 x203
(31 0) 930-4332 (cell)
Preserving land and restoring habitat for the education and enjoyment of all.
loin our mailing list
Join us on
1
PRESERVING LAND AND RESTORING HABITAT FOR THE EDUCATION AND ENJOYMENT OF ALL
December 14, 2020
Subject: Dec. 15, 2020 Staff Report regarding possible actions for Preserve parking and access
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council,
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy would like to provide feedback on a few of the
elements pertaining to Preserve parking and access for Council's consideration . We largely concur
with staffs assessment of options and recommendations for providing public access opportunities to
the Preserve trailheads while balancing neighborhood concerns of traffic and other nuisances.
As City staff and the Land Conservancy embark on a Preserve use and capacity study, we believe that
the results will inform decisions for managing public use to ensure the conservation of protected
species and habitats while addressing community concerns. The timing of the preliminary capacity study
results is well coordinated with the other actions underway in the staff report.
We would like to offer the following specific comments:
I. We agree with the staff report's assessment that creating new parking within the Preserve is
not compatible with the NCCP/HCP. Furthermore, we believe that creating new parking in the
Gateway area is not a desirable option for the reasons notes in the staff report.
2. The pilot shuttle program along the coastal Preserve areas is an exciting option, which should
provide easier access to trailheads, many of which are far from parking areas (i.e. lower Portuguese
Bend). The Land Conservancy would be willing to provide volunteer ambassadors to ride the shuttle
who will share information about the Preserve's interesting natural environs and rules to follow.
3. If the City Council decides to implement a paid parking system on Crenshaw Blvd, south of
Crest Road, it is our desire that the mobile application (and any physical pay station) should have multi-
lingual capabilities for Preserve visitors who may not speak English as their primary language.
This is certainly a complex and challenging issue to resolve. We appreciate the opportunities to share
our expertise in managing the Preserve's natural resources to help inform decisions that Council will
make regarding public access.
Respectfully,
Adrienne Mohan
Executive Director, Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
916 SILVER SPUR ROAD# 207 . ROLLING HILLS ESTATES. CA 90274 -3826 T 310 .541.7613 WWW .PVPLC.ORG
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 9:02 AM
CityCierk
FW: December 15th City Council Meeting
From: Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 10:13 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Don Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; Amanda
Wong <kiwi_esq@hotmail.com>; Herb Stark <stearman@juno.com>; Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com>; Jessica
Vlaco <vlacoS@cox.net> <vlacoS@cox.net>; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; Martha Foster
<martycrna@gmail.com>; Jack Fleming <jjfleming2000@yahoo.com>; Ed Hummel <ecarloshum@gmail.com>; Ara
Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>
Subject: December 15th City Council Meeting
Dear City Council Members,
We have been talking about restricting parking at Ladera Linda Park for years now, so you may be tired of hearing about
this issue. However, due to it's (parking) importance as it relates to the overall (LLP) plan, I'm going to touch on it anyway.
First let me state, I am not opposed to visitors, as we have them now and that will continue. What I am opposed to is
overloading our community past the saturation point. While that is a subjective term, there has to be some
reasonableness on what we can take. Additional parking at (or near) this particular site (LLP) could very well bring us to
that reality. I see it now, with the an mostly inactive LL site, with parking limited; that on the weekends the park, as well as
surrounding trails, become impacted. Imagine this scenario, with a rebuilt park facility,advertised heavily on social media
and convenient parking for many more. As a result, you running the risk of overloading the surrounding community's with
an infrastructure unable to support the predictable increase in visitors. Needless to say I am vehemently opposed to
parking placed anywhere other than on the LLP property as it will be constructed.
That brings me to the Gateway issue. As I understand it, part of your parking plan would encompass a large parcel of land
behind the gate in the slide area off PVS. I have two issues with this, first what kind of maintenance plan would you
create with a graded area in that tortuous land, already full of crevasses, in an active wet slide zone? You already see
what we are confronted with on the adjoining 0.8 mile of continually moving roadway. Secondly, the coast line would also
become adversely affected, as increased numbers, created by convenient, available parking, would descend on the
ocean-side trails while crossing the PVS, many with family's accompanied by little children. Add to this additional trash
and, by a few, disrespect for the land. Not all folks care about our PV home as we all do. I'm hiking in this area weekly and
see this with my own eyes. People wonder all over the place.
To conclude, I feel that the top responsibility's of our City Council, as well as Recreation and Parks, is the care and the
well being of our residents and the protection of our fragile environment. A Gateway Park parking plan serves neither.
So I ask, when weighing your decisions, please consider all the feedback (literally over the years) you have received on
the restricted parking option(s). This community plea has been made for good reason.
I have lived in Ladera Linda for 50 years, and in that time I have yet to see a project as impactful as the revised Park. To
me, as well as to many others, in our community, the limited parking issue is a major component of that plan.
Thank you for your consideration in this manner.
Regards,
1 J.
Bill Schurmer
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Ms. Schneider,
Katie Lozano
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 8:00 AM
Julie Schneider
CC; CityCierk
RE: Future projects impacting equine activity
Thank you for your email. The Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project and Preserve
Parking and Access efforts are being prepared in compliance with the City's Trails Network Plan,
Conceptual Trails Plan and Preserve Public Use Master Plan. The Preserve Parking and Access
effort does not propose development internal to the Preserve or on open space land that would
trigger closing existing trails or implementing new conceptual trails, and at this time the Portuguese
Bend Landslide Remediation Project is not anticipated to cause any existing authorized trails to be
relocated. However, if an authorized trail is temporarily closed during construction of the project, the
City will repair and reopen the trail as part of the project. Moreover, both of these City
projects will not result in the permanent closure of the two authorized access points from the
Portuguese Bend Community to the Preserve.
It is the City's practice to identify opportunities during construction projects to implement
the conceptual trails identified within the Conceptual Trails Plan (the trails identified in the Preserve
Trails Plan of the Public Use Master Plan ((PUMP)) already exist). However, in the case of private
development projects, the City cannot require a private property owner to implement a trail on their
private property. In these cases, the City works with the private property owner at the time the
property owner submits a development application to describe the benefits of dedicating the
appropriate easements for trail access and to determine if the property owner is willing to voluntarily
dedicate land for a trail easement. Again, the City cannot require such a trail easement dedication
from a property owner.
Public safety is top priority for the City. The City works directly with the LA County Fire Department
and LA County Sheriff's Department on disaster evacuation, firefighting access, and emergency
preparedness. In fact, the City held a test operation of the Emergency Operations Center in
November in coordination with public safety agencies, and a focus was emergency response
within the Preserve. The network of existing trails throughout the City do offer access in response to
an emergency if warranted.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can provide additional or more specific
information.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation and Parks Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
katiel@rpvca.gov
1
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working
on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in
advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are
limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of
department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Julie Schneider <sterlingclara@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 7:50AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca .gov>; Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Sheri Hastings <sherihastings@yahoo.com>
Subject: Future projects impacting equine activity
As an equestrian in the Portuguese Bend community, I am writing to express concern over the impacts of the
Landslide Mitigation Project as well as the parking and access projects.
Encircled as we are by the nature preserves and the public trail systems on all sides, each proposed project,
while possibly worthy, impact us all. Each project encroaches on current trails, habitat and public health by
bringing more people to less and less space. The project mitigation plans do not address the impact on the
horse community and those who wish to continue to recreate safely on the trails. In 1984, the city approved
The Trail Network Plan to enhance and maintain the trails. City staff were directed to watch for opportunity to
enhance the trail network where other projects are proposed and initiated by staff. The plan included the
need for disaster evacuation, firefighting access and other emergency preparedness concerns. The Palos
Verdes Loop trail has already been disrupted. Due to erosion and lack of maintenance, new ways of getting
through were created by trail users who then encroached on private property, which was later closed off.
These factors have led to the loss of full segments of the trail network.
We ask that while you plan both the parking and landslide mitigation projects, as well as any future projects,
you follow the already adopted Trail Network Plan and look to enhance the trail network at every
opportunity. This includes engineering permanent trail routes, canyon crossings, erosion control and access
to trails from the Portuguese Bend Community. Access to Jack's Hat and Three Sisters is now at risk,
dependent on property owners and conservancy to make a deal. This too puts more people on fewer trails
which affects us all, the habitat and public safety. Many hikers and bikers are unaware of safe behavior around
horses, so forcing all trail users into the same small space is extremely dangerous not only for equestrians, but
also for other trail users. An expanded and managed trail network is crucial to safety. Please include the 1984
Trails Network plan in your plans.
Thank you for your attention,
Julie Schenider
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Ms. Traughber,
Katie Lozano
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 6:58 AM
lynn
CC; CityCierk
RE: Document-Dec 14, 2020
Thank you for your email. The Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project and Preserve
Parking and Access efforts are being prepared in compliance with the City's Trails Network Plan,
Conceptual Trails Plan and Preserve Public Use Master Plan. The Preserve Parking and Access
effort does not propose development internal to the Preserve or on open space land that would
trigger closing existing trails or implementing new conceptual trails, and at this time the Portuguese
Bend Landslide Remediation Project is not anticipated to cause any existing authorized trails to be
relocated. However, if an authorized trail is temporarily closed during construction of the project, the
City will repair and reopen the trail as part of the project. Moreover, both of these City
projects will not result in the permanent closure of the two authorized access points from the
Portuguese Bend Community to the Preserve.
It is the City's practice to identify opportunities during construction projects to implement
the conceptual trails identified within the Conceptual Trails Plan (the trails identified in the Preserve
Trails Plan of the Public Use Master Plan ((PUMP)) already exist). However, in the case of private
development projects, the City cannot require a private property owner to implement a trail on their
private property. In these cases, the City works with the private property owner at the time the
property owner submits a development application to describe the benefits of dedicating the
appropriate easements for trail access and to determine if the property owner is willing to voluntarily
dedicate land for a trail easement. Again, the City cannot require such a trail easement dedication
from a property owner.
Public safety is top priority for the City. The City works directly with the LA County Fire Department
and LA County Sheriff's Department on disaster evacuation, firefighting access, and emergency
preparedness. In fact, the City held a test operation of the Emergency Operations Center in
November in coordination with public safety agencies, and a focus was emergency response
within the Preserve. The network of existing trails throughout the City do offer access in response to
an emergency if warranted.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can provide additional or more specific
information.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation and Parks Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
katiel@rpvca.gov
1
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working
on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in
advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are
limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of
department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website .
From: lynn <ldpiper@msn .com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 9:13 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Document -Dec 14, 2020
Scanned with TurboScan.
Sent from my iPhone
2
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members:
As a hiker, equestrian and homeowner in the Portuguese Bend
community, I am writing to express concern over the impacts of
the Landslide Mitigation Project as well as the parking and
access projects.
Encircled as we are by the nature preserves and the public trail
systems on all sides, each proposed project, while possibly
worthy, impact us all. Each project encroaches on current trails,
habitat and public health by bringing more people to less and
less space. The project mitigation plans do not address the
impact on the horse community and those who wish to continue
to recreate safely on the trails. In 1984, the city approved The
Trail Network Plan to enhance and maintain the trails. City staff
were directed to watch for opportunity to enhance the trail
network where other projects are proposed and initiated by
staff. The plan included the need for disaster evacuation,
frrefighting access and other emergency preparedness concerns.
The Palos Verdes Loop trail has already been disrupted. Due to
erosion and lack of maintenance, new ways of getting through
were created by trail users who then encroached on private
property, which was later closed off. These factors have led to
the loss of full segments of the trail network.
We ask that while you plan both the parking and landslide
mitigation projects, as well as any future projects, you follow the
already adopted Trail Network Plan and look to enhance the trail
network at every opportunity. This includes engineering
permanent trail routes, canyon crossings, erosion control and
access to trails from the Portuguese Bend Community. Access to
Jack's Hat and Three Sisters is now at risk, dependent on
property owners and conservancy to make a deal. This too puts
more people on fewer trails which affects us all, the habitat and
public safety. Please include the 1984 Trails Network plan in
your plans.
Sincerely,
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members:
As a hiker, equestrian and homeowner in the Portuguese Bend
community, I am writing to express concern over the impacts of
the Landslide Mitigation Project as well as the parking and
access projects.
Encircled as we are by the nature preserves and the public trail
systems on all sides, each proposed project, while possibly
worthy, impact us all. Each project encroaches on current trails,
habitat and public health by bringing more people to less and
less space. The project mitigation plans do not address the
impact on the horse community and those who wish to continue
to recreate safely on the trails. In 1984, the city approved The
Trail Network Plan to enhance and maintain the trails. City staff
were directed to watch for opportunity to enhance the trail
network where other projects are proposed and initiated by
staff. The plan included the need for disaster evacuation,
firefighting access and other emergency preparedness concerns.
The Palos Verdes Loop trail has already been disrupted. Due to
erosion and lack of maintenance, new ways of getting through
were created by trail users who then encroached on private
property, which was later closed off. These factors have led to
the loss of full segments of the trail network.
We ask that while you plan both the parking and landslide
mitigation projects, as well as any future projects, you follow the
already adopted Trail Network Plan and look to enhance the trail
network at every opportunity. This includes engineering
permanent trail routes, canyon crossings, erosion control and
access to trails from the Portuguese Bend Community. Access to
Jack's Hat and Three Sisters is now at risk, dependent on
property owners and conservancy to make a deal. This too puts
more people on fewer trails which affects us all, the habitat and
public safety. Please include the 1984 Trails Network plan in
your plans.
Sincerely,
(JY2"DYl LW
~\{ N N bi 'i-rz-o tJL ov
60~· {plc;J·t;bOJ (p
From: Katie Lozano
Sent:
To:
Monday, December 14, 2020 7:27PM
ja rasu nas@cox. net
Cc: CC; CityCierk
Subject: Re: Tues RPVCC Agenda -Parking Solutions in Del Cerro Neighborhood
Hello Mr. Jarasunas,
Thank you for your continued coordination and your email. Your email will be included as late correspondence with the
December 15th City Council agenda item on Preserve parking and access.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are
required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation
and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the
appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a
time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the
Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Romas Jarasunas <jarasunas@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:43 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; Romas Jarasunas <jarasunas@cox.net>
Subject: Tues RPVCC Agenda -Parking Solutions in Del Cerro Neighborhood
Honorable Mayor and City Council members,
Thank you for your consideration in this serious traffic matter on Crenshaw. We appreciate this is a difficult issue that
the City Council is tasked to resolve. It would appear that the potential for resolution is fairly simple and
straightforward. Our HOA members reviewed all of the potential solutions and the following do resonate:
1. Del Cerro Park conversion to a parking lot-we strongly oppose, so please remove any such option as it still
promotes Crenshaw as the bottleneck, and works against the holistic solution to distribute the parking to other
entrances of the Preserve. The justification to remove this idea goes back to our conversations with RPVCC back in
2015. The neighborhood park footprint is invaluable for the community and visitors to enjoy the green lawn. It has a
history of an important staging area in case of fires for helicopters to land and units to mobilize in case of
emergency. The recreational and strategic use of this park should be very important to the City Council.
1
2. Crenshaw temporary red striping-please continue to extend as long as possible. This is the least costly solution and
no police enforcement is needed. It has already minimized the number of cars per week, and improved safety and
liability issues. This would also help the situation on Park Place as fewer cars would randomly enter that street and make
u-turns; same would be true on the Crenshaw extension, safer for pedestrians and fewer u-turns. It was observed by
several members that the additional white curb for loading and unloading has been confusing to visitors who believe it's
ok to park there-some parking enforcement tickets were noticed but rarely throughout the week.
3. Rattlesnake trailhead gate -please implement soon to complement the Burma Road solution. The two gates need
to work together to minimize the parking situation.
4. Parking reservation system -please continue with consultant. A consideration is that some members of our HOA
believe that traffic may not improve much due to queuing. Lack of enforcement and cost could be significant factors, but
still be worthwhile to examine further.
We have compared notes with several other neighboring HOAs and believe we are united in implementing immediate
solutions.
Sincerely,
Romas Jarasunas
Burrell/Park Place HOA President
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Mr. Davies,
Katie Lozano
Monday, December 14, 2020 7:20 PM
jeremydavies2014@gmail.com
CC; CityCierk
Re: Trails
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence with the December 15th City Council agenda item on
Preserve parking and access.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are
required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation
and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the
appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a
time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the
Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Jeremy Davies <jeremydavies2014@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 4:57 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Sheri Hastings <sherihastings@yahoo.com>; Lisa Gladstone <lisa@coastalobesity.com>; Pippa Davies
<pippahdavies@gmail.com>
Subject: Trails
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members:
As a hiker, equestrian and homeowner in the Portuguese Bend community, I am writing to express concern over the
impacts of the Landslide Mitigation Project as well as the parking and access projects.
Encircled as we are by the nature preserves and the public trail systems on all sides, each proposed project, while
possibly worthy, impact us all. Each project encroaches on current trails, habitat and public health by bringing more
people to less and less space. The project mitigation plans do not address the impact on the horse community and those
who wish to continue to recreate safely on the trails. In 1984, the city approved The Trail Network Plan to enhance and
maintain the trails. City staff were directed to watch for opportunity to enhance the trail network where other
projects are proposed and initiated by staff. The plan inclu:ed the need for disaster evacuation, firefighting acc:J.
other emergency preparedness concerns. The Palos Verdes Loop trail has already been disrupted. Due to erosion and
lack of maintenance, new ways of getting through were created by trail users who then encroached on private property,
which was later closed off. These factors have led to the loss of full segments of the trail network.
We ask that while you plan both the parking and landslide mitigation projects, as well as any future projects, you follow
the already adopted Trail Network Plan and look to enhance the trail network at every opportunity. This includes
engineering permanent trail routes, canyon crossings, erosion control and access to trails from the Portuguese Bend
Community. Access to Jack's Hat and Three Sisters is now at risk, dependent on property owners and conservancy to
make a deal. This too puts more people on fewer trails which affects us all, the habitat and public safety. Please include
the 1984 Trails Network plan in your plans.
Pippa Davies
Jeremy Davies
36 Cinnamon Lane
RPV CA 90275
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Ron Dragoo
Monday, December 14, 2020 5:32 PM
smhvaleri@cox.net
Cc: CC; Ara Mihranian; Karina Banales; Megan Barnes; Katie Lozano; McKenzie Bright; Daniel
Trautner; Cory Linder; CityCierk
Subject: RE : Landslide Mitigation -Agenda Item 2
Dear Ms. Valeri,
Thank you for your comments. Public comments received will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence in
advance of tomorrow's and Saturday's meetings.
Best regards,
Ron Dragoo, PE
Principal Engineer
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working
on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in
advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are
limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of
department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 4:40 PM
To: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; McKenzie Bright <mBright@rpvca.gov>; Daniel Trautner <DanieiT@rpvca.gov>;
Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Karina Banales <kbanales@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Landslide Mitigation-Agenda Item 2
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
City Manager's Office
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5226
mbarnes@rpvca .gov
From: Sandra Valeri <smhvaleri@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 4:20PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov >; Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca .gov >; Ara Mihranian
1 :J .
<Ara M@ rpvca .gov>
Cc: Sheri Hastings <Sherihastings@yahoo.com>
Subject: Landslide Mitigation -Agenda Item 2
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for your consideration of this important issue. As a regular user of our city's trails, a resident of Ladera Linda,
and a member of the Volunteer Trail Watch, I am witness to many issues issues associated with increased visitor usage
to our Preserve, and the impact on the surrounding adjacent neighborhoods. Thank you for your sensitivity to neighbors'
issues regarding invasions from excessive visitors causing problems with noise, trash, crime and safety.
However the problem isn't just with parking alone, it's also with the sheer number of visitors to the preserve, the trash
and graffiti they leave behind, and the nuisances they sometimes cause. Limiting parking is one way to also reasonably
control the flow and number of visitors.
I give my support to the idea of a parking reservation system to better manage the flow of visitors to the preserve and
the demand on limited parking. Such a system could be put in place at Del Cerro now. Perhaps a LIMITED number of
parking spaces above the gate at Ladera Linda also could be similarly designated for the Reserve, available on a paid
reservation system. But then the actual parking spaces at the LL community center should be reserved for the
Community Center itself and not for the Preserve. As an LL resident, I can support a number of designated Preserve
parking spaces above the gate, available on paid reservation system, INSTEAD of allowing preserve parking in the
Community Center lots. To spread the pain around, a SMALL parking lot could also be built at the bottom of Three
Sisters at the Tarragon Road location. However, I know that is a very small tight residential road with poor egress, and
any lot there should be appropriately scaled to limited impact to the residents, perhaps just 12-15 spots instead of the
max potential of 30? And again all of these should also be available exclusively on a paid reservation system to limit the
amount of vehicles entering the area.
I absolutely support a charge for parking at all of these locations. The city could use those funds to help maintain the
preserve and enforce usage rules. $20 for 4 hours is not unreasonable. What beach city can you go to that gives you free
all day parking? As an alternative to the paid parking locations on a reservation system, perhaps discount or free
parking, not tied to an advance reservation system, could be available at the City Hall. Though I do not support shuttling
the hikers around, because that causes new additional operational costs and liability to be borne by our city, and for no
real benefit, and it doesn't help to manage the flow of visitors into the trails. So offer free or reduced parking cost, like
$5 or $10 instead of $20, and no reservation needed at the City Hall, but then let the users hike or bike from there.
Another benefit to this plan is that it would better enable the policing of entry and exit hours too. If parking isn't
available until 7:00am, then we might see a steep decline in noisy hikers at predawn. Also If parking isn't allowed at all
past sunset or dusk, it might help with the nighttime partiers. Also it will help deter the large unsanctioned group
meetups.
Many of our residential trail users were hoping this item would also address trail access itself inside the Preserve. The
recent closure of the Vanderlip Trail in the Portuguese Bend Reserve has caused a lot of problems and long detours. An
alternate trail, closer to Vanderlip trail that could have been used as a detour or alternate route, was closed by the
Nature Conservancy for spurious reasons. Literally they just didn't want another trail, so they closed that one. While
repairs are in work, we need to ensure that access for riders and hikers is allowed. We need to reopen the alternate to
the Vanderlip trail at least while the Vanderlip trail is closed.
City staff were directed to watch for opportunity to enhance the trail network where other projects are proposed and
initiated by staff. The plan included the need for disaster evacuation, firefighting access and other emergency
preparedness concerns. The Palos Verdes Loop trail has already been disrupted. Due to erosion and lack of
maintenance, new ways of getting through were created by trail users who then encroached on private property, which
2
was later closed off. These factors have led to the loss of full segments of the trail network. I urge the city to follow the
original Trail Network Plan and maintain the Palos Verdes Loop Trail. Where necessary obtain permission for Easements
from property owners as a condition of development I grading/ building plans being approved.
We ask that while you plan both the parking and landslide mitigation projects, as well as any future projects, you follow
the already adopted Trail Network Plan and look to enhance the trail network at every opportunity. This includes
engineering permanent trail routes, canyon crossings, erosion control and access to trails from the Portuguese Bend
Community. Access to Jack's Hat and Three Sisters is now at risk, dependent on property owners and conservancy to
make a deal. We need to avoid trail loss, which only results in more people on fewer trails which affects us all, the
habitat, the native fauna, and public safety. Please include the 1984 Trails Network plan in your plans.
Sincerely,
Sandra Valeri
Resident of Ladera Linda, Rancho Palos Verdes
3
From: Stephanie Valencia
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 3:14 PM
stellalarose@msn.com
Cc: CC; CityCierk
Subject: FW: Proposed parking lot on P.V. Dr. South
Hello Russell and Stella LaRose,
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence with the December 15 City Council agenda item on
Preserve parking and access.
Thank you,
Stephanie Valencia
Recreation Specialist
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Office
310-544-5260
Parks Make Life Better!
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical
distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance
by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that ou r response to
your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Stella LaRose <stellalarose@msn.com >
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 2:29 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Subject: Proposed parking lot on P.V. Dr. South
To RPV City Council
We protest your proposed plan of turning the vacant lot on PV Dr. S. and
Tarragon Road into a public parking lot.
We bought our first and only house over half a century ago on the Peninsula and
supported the incorporation of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
The main purpose of incorporation was to keep the City's rural and peaceful
ambiance. So far, most of the City's government had been considerate of its
citizens and adhered to the original purpose of incorporation. Your latest
proposal is in direct opposite to the intent of our City.
1
Please reconsider and leave the vacant lot undeveloped for both ambience and
ecologically.
Thank you
Russell and Stella LaRose
6111 Arrowroot Lane
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 5:27 PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Preserve Parking
From: patricia stenehjem <patsyanntoo@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 4:58 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Preserve Parking
Dear Council members,
I am a resident of the Ladera Linda community, which would be negatively impacted by adding parking for the Preserve
along Forrestal Drive, especially if parking is added beyond the Forrestal gate. Please do not consider that an option. So
far, it has worked out well to have parking for the Preserve at Ladera Linda Community Center. I further urge you not to
consider a shuttle to or from the Preserve.
Sincerely,
Patricia Stenehjem
32215 Searaven Drive
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council Members:
Anne Cruz <cruzsanne@gmail.com>
Monday, December 14, 2020 4:59 PM
CityCierk
City Council Meeting 12/15/20 Agenda Item 2 -Portuguese Bend Preserve/PV Drive
South
We write to you about our serious concerns over the City's plans and considerations for parking and use of the
Portuguese Bend Preserve, Palos Verdes Drive South segments, and the southern areas of the Preserve-the then-called
"Gateway Park" area. We are homeowners and residents in the Seaview Neighborhood immediately adjacent to Palos
Verdes Drive South and the Portuguese Bend Preserve. We can see the preserves from our house and regularly hike
trails in our area. I drive this section of Palos Verdes Drive South many times every day. I have lived in the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes for a total of over 20 years. There does not appear to be a voice regarding the state of Palos
Verdes Drive South in the City Staff's report or agenda references. In sum, we implore the City to strike any
consideration of new parking in the Preserve and the then-called "Gateway Park." There is no place for any new parking
lots, roads, or new use in the Palos Verdes Drive South area up to and including the "Gateway Park." Building a parking
lot or other structure is the antithesis of "preservation." Based on our daily observations and experience, the area is
over capacity and cannot accommodate any new use, development, wear/tear, weight, or additional water/drainage
impacts of any type. Any parking lot/development or additional traffic will further exacerbate the deterioration of open
space in this region and dramatically increase the land movement issues.
First, our City is meeting its duties to provide reasonable, open access to our open lands and Preserve spaces. The Staff
Report indicates that presently there are approx. 650 visitors a day. Our City is already beyond capacity as evidenced
through the traffic and parking issues that we experience in the Palos Verdes Drive South area already and those in the
Del Cerro region are experiencing. In our area, Palos Verdes Drive South has high levels of traffic daily. This road is just
a two-lane road with no possibility of expansion due to the land and neighborhoods. The traffic and use issues have only
increased with the current construction of a new road at the Trump golf course and new housing
construction. Specifically, the City is allowing the current construction of a new turn in/turn out lands into the median
on Palos Verdes Drive South just south of the Schooner Drive intersection. The Schooner Drive entrance to our Seaview
Neighborhood is 1 of only 2 roads into our area from Palos Verdes Drive South. The traffic, pedestrian use, and bicycling
use of Palos Verdes Drive South is at an all-time high for daily use based on our observations. Crucially, between our
family and all the Seaview neighbors we know, already no one can take left hand turns onto Palos Verdes Drive South to
go Southbound from Schooner Drive leaving our neighborhood. The traffic and bicyclists have become so dense that
everyone travels only to the Conqueror Drive exit to leave because there is a left hand merge. Even this merging area is
now problematic because of the increase in public use of parking, double parking and use at the turn outs for Marilyn
Ryan Sunset Point Park. The number of bicyclists, particularly in large "peloton" groups traveling along Palos Verdes
Drive South over this section adjacent to the Preserve has increased dramatically as well. During summer months, the
Sheriff's Department has regularly had a mobile station of sorts set out on the right-hand shoulder area of Palos Verdes
Drive South in this area by Inception Point due to all the safety and use issues in the area. The area is over capacity and
a "new parking lot" will only increase these problems. A new parking lot off this road in this instance would not be
managing the Del Cerro parking problem but destroy the open area and increase the issues in the Palos Verdes Drive
South region. While the City should continue to address reasonable measures to accommodate those Del Cerro parking
problems, the City should not and cannot include building a new lot in the Preserve itself nor off Palos Verdes Drive
South where there is no capacity and massive land movement problems exist daily.
Second, under the City's General Plan elements of Land Use, Circulation, and Conservation and Open Space, we have a
duty to continue to preserve the character of the open areas and ensure that Palos Verdes Drive South remains a usable
1 ~.
and passable road. These lands must be "preserved" and we do not owe a duty to expand this Palos Verdes Drive South
area which is already oversaturated with traffic, use, and abuse of the land. The General Plan as referenced by the Staff
Report to this Agenda calls: "To conserve, protect, and enhance the City's natural resources; beauty; and open space for
the benefit and enjoyment of its residents and the residents of the entire region." This mandates the City focus on the
mitigation of land movement, preservation of all this open space, and preservation of the existence of Palos Verdes
Drive South. The last 50-year history of the land movement and deterioration of the coastal area at the southern
section of the Preserve and Palos Verdes Drive South, specifically the "Bumpy Road" section, demonstrate that any new
parking or parking lot development here would be a disaster. Presently, there is literally a flashing sign warning people
of land movement at the beginning of this section of road. This area is re-leveled and re-paved at least yearly by the City
in extensive fashion because of the problems. Any suggestion of building a parking lot and park area in this section is
not founded in facts or common sense. Should the road and area deteriorate or fall, it will have
disastrous consequences for all of the public use, homes, and businesses that use part of the City. One only need look a
few miles south of the City to the example of the stretch of Paseo Del Mar in the San Pedro area of the City of Los
Angeles, south of White's Point to see the results of the use of a similar coastal road that collapsed decades ago now
which remains in disrepair. No regional, county, or city authorities appear concerned with that land collapse. Our City is
the only steward for the Palos Verdes Drive South region. We have a duty to preserve this area, which the City is
struggling with at present. Building parking and increasing its deterioration would be a failure.
Third, the City previously considered and correctly abandoned the idea of development the then "Gateway Park" parking
idea as stated in the Staff Report. All ofthe concerns that led the City to not incorporate any of that development into
the City's Parks Master Plan update remain problems today. This development idea should not be revived. The
community concerns all remain which include: neighborhood traffic, noise and pollution impacts,
vehicle/pedestrian/cyclist safety concerns, recreational safety-including rescue issues and helicopter rescues remain
during the summer months and trespassing concerns, and "Doubts regarding effectiveness in relieving Del Cerro
neighborhood congestion." The City's staff recommendation to again revive a traffic and parking analysis and study of
this Palos Verdes Drive area is a waste of time, money, and effort. This area is under constant movement and is not
tenable for a pedestrian crosswalk, additional lot, other facilities and the pollution that would accompany it. The City is
not currently able to sufficiently preserve this area of Palos Verdes Drive South and Preserve given the movement and
traffic it presently has. The City's focus should be on maintaining the area as best it can and not further lose the open
space.
Rancho Palos Verdes, the Preserve and adjacent areas are small regional areas, not vast National Park. We do not have
a duty to increase visitors or expand facilities to bear the burden of hosting thousands of people a day where there is no
capacity. We thank you for your time and consideration of these issues. We invite you to contact us or our
neighborhood to investigate these issues.
Regards,
Anne and Joseph Cruz
Dauntless Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
RPV City Council,
Philip Robinson <probinson1 @cox.net>
Monday, December 14, 2020 4:03 PM
CityCierk
Use of Lot at 6359 Tarragon Rd. for Trails Public Parking
You are being asked to consider as a part of a traffic study the use of the city owned lot at 6359 Tarragon Rd. for public
parking for trail hikers. I request that you eliminate this lot from the traffic study and from further consideration as a
public parking lot. This is a residential lot in a residential neighborhood that has houses on both sides of it.
Consider if the city decided to purchase and tear down the house next to yours and put in public parking lot. Public
parking on our streets is restricted because we previously experienced public parking when Abalone Cove parking
became pay-to-park. Then the public parked on our streets and we had trash in our yards and unwanted activity in cars.
The city has gone to substantial lengths to restrict public parking on major thoroughfares in the Del Cerro Park area, let
alone on their residential streets. I request that you extend the same level of consideration to the residents of Upper
Abalone Cove.
Increasing parking may only increase the load on the trail system and adjacent residential neighborhoods. While
originally well intentioned, the trail system has the potential become an attractive nuisance for the city, not an asset.
I suggest that in addition to considering parking you consider reducing the size ofthe trail system to limit the problems it
is causing. Trails and trailheads that are close to residential neighborhoods should be considered for closure.
The trailheads that are allowed continue should be close to established and trouble free public parking.
Thank you,
Philip Robinson
3205 Barkentine Rd.
310-377-6279
416probinson@gmail.com
1 ~.
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 4:09 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Council hearing on access to hiking trails
From: Msgr. David A. Sork <dasork@sjf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 4:08 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Council hearing on access to hiking trails
Dear Council Members,
I have lived in Rancho Palos Verdes since 1999 and live on the church premises at Crest Road and Crenshaw Boulevard.
understand that the City Council will be discussing a number of issues that have arisen because of the proliferation of
hikers parking near where I live. Although I certainly support the right of people to hike along our beautiful trails, I do
have concerns as to where they park to get to these trails.
Parking in a residential neighborhood does have negative consequences both to the residences of these
neighborhoods. For St. John Fisher specifically, the proliferation of cars parked along Crenshaw Boulevard has created a
hazard for people exiting from our Crenshaw exit. It is difficult to turn out of our lot because the cars parking on the
east side of Crenshaw block the view. I recommend painting it red on that side.
Our own parking lot is designed for those coming to services at St. John Fisher. When I built the church, our conditional
use permit was granted by the City Council when I carefully presented a parking plan based on the number of people
using our facilities. I certainly did not include hikers. Although our signs indicate that this is not for the public, hikers
don't always heed this.
It would make more sense to me to have the city provide parking on Palos Verdes Drive South for two reasons. One,
there is much more room in that area and almost no residents there. Two, If a person is hiking, he or she would be fresh
when hiking uphill and tired when hiking downhill. It is just the opposite when hikers park along Crenshaw Boulevard .
I strongly urge the Council to encourage access to the trails away from this area.
M~. Vcwid,.A. Sen-~
Pastor
St. John Fisher Church
Rancho Pa los Verdes, CA
310-377 -5571
d as ork@s jf. org
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
thehabers@aol.com
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 4:12 PM
CityCierk
Objection to parking lot at 6359 Tarragon Road
We were shocked to learn that you are even remotely considering converting the property at 6359 Tarragon Road to a
parking lot.
One of the reasons we moved to our home 37 years ago was that the street except for the occasional access for Southern
California Edison is a cui-de sac. We had young children at the time and believed that the lack of traffic would make the
neighborhood much safer for them. Now we have young grandchildren and feel the same way. We don't believe that the
street was meant to have cars driving back and forth on it at all times.
Already we see cars that park in the neighborhood from people going to Abalone Cove who want to avoid paying the
parking fee at the Abalone Cove parking lot. A parking lot at the end of Tarragon will only make matters much worse. Not
only would there be much more traffic, but more cars would be parked on the street whenever the parking lot was full
causing even more congestion and more illegal parking.
Finally, this would greatly increase the number of cars making left turns from Palos Verdes Drive South to Barkentine
Road. It is already difficult to cross Palos Verdes Drive South on foot from Barkentine Road. This would make it much
more dangerous. Similarly it would become much more dangerous to make a left turn from Barkentine Road to Palos
Verdes Drive South.
Thank you.
Richard and Brigitte Haber
6330 Tarragon Road
1 d.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late correspondence for item 3.
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
City Manager's Office
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5226
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Megan Barnes
Wednesday, December 9, 2020 3:27 PM
CityCierk
FW: Agenda item 3
From: Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 3:20PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Agenda item 3
Mayor and Council members
I noticed that you have expressed interest in the environmental impacts
or the City's electrical use. A while back I was communicating with Staff
when Council was considering installing EV charging stations at Hess Park
and I put together some suggestions that included a solar system at Hess
Park as a park of that endeavor.
Here are some suggestions from that paper sent to Council in March of
this year.
I would recommend doing a feasibility study (or bid) for adding solar panels to the Hess
Park building as well. This would allow for an economy of scale for the entire solar system and, as
I explain in my paper to staff in 2019, SCE has a way to allocate solar power generated to the grid
as a credit on other municipal buildings. Be aware that under SCE Rule 21 any system over 1
megawatt (MW) has different rules. And be aware of orientation of the solar panels and any
shading. A micro-inverter system, or power optimizer, makes sense because under one inverter, if
one panel is shaded by 50%, all panel output is reduced by 50%.
SCE does credit solar energy at full retail value on a monthly basis but be aware that at the
end of the year when they settle up the account (end of relevant period) you will be compensated
by the default load aggregation point (DLAP) which is below wholesale rates. The take home of
this is there is no need to design a solar system beyond your annual energy needs.
1 3
There are leasing programs that could have very little or no cost to the City
budget.
As a part of your search for ways to reduce your GHG emission levels I highly
recommend you explore a solar option at either Hess Park or City Hall.
Thank you
Jim Knight
2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
DECEMBER 14, 2020
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through
Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, December 15, 2020 City Council meeting:
Item No.
c
J
2
Description of Material
Border Issues additional information
Letter from Dr. Barbara Ferrer; Email from Sharon Yarber
Emails from: Sheri Hastings; Donna Diamond; Noreen and Bruce
Chambers; Bryan Bergsteinsson; Melody Colbert; Catherine Zyetz;
Shannon Kilcullen; Donna Hulbert; Christopher Cox; Phillip Robinson;
Dorothy and James Chadwick; Jeffrey and Marguerite Robbins; Michael
Lebovitz; Michael and Maria Garcia; Irene and Paul Henrikson; Richard
and Diane Blade; Brian Thompson; Lynda Heran; Kathy Edgerton;
Barry Rodgveller; Donald Bell; Adrienne Mohan; Diane Mills; Kim &
Wouter van Biene; Loretta Daniels; Jeanie Muller; Mickey Radich;
Laura McFarland Luczak; Myrna Levy; Frank Dunst; Ben Zask; Dottie
Lancaster Hashizumi; Dr. and Mrs. Keehong Kim; Patricia Stenehjem;
JoNeen Ohlaker; William and Marianne Hunter; Lindsey Wooldridge;
Lisa Gladstone; Herb Stark; Lisa Wolf; Sunshine; Michael L. Fiorentino
Gutierrez; Jeffrey L. and Janet Mock; Jane and James lsomoto; Marc &
Carrie Fernandez
Re~mitted,
Emily Colborn
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\20201214 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late carr for Item C.
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
City Manager's Office
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5226
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Megan Barnes
Monday, December 14, 2020 3:28 PM
CityCierk
FW: Memo Regarding Item C
20201216_Memo.docx
From: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 3:28 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Memo Regarding Item C
Good Afternoon Mayor and Council Members,
Please see the attached memo regarding Item Con Tuesday's council agenda (Border Issues Status Report), which
contains information on an additional project that will be included in future Border Issues Status Reports.
Thank you,
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
City Manager's Office
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5226
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
1 C.
MEMORANDUM CHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
CC:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Megan Barnes, City Manager's Office
Ara Mihranian, Karina Baiiales, City Manager's Office
December 14, 2020
Additional Information for 12-15-20 City Council Meeting Item C
Late last week after the transmittal of the December 15 agenda, Staff was made aware
of a draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared by the City of Rolling Hills for
a proposed mixed-use, multi-family overlay zone along the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
border on Crest Road. This project will be monitored by Staff and included in future
Border Issues Status Reports. For the City Council's review, a summary is provided
below:
Rancho Del Mar Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (Rolling Hills)
On November 17, 2020, the City of Rolling Hills issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt an
Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the Rancho Del Mar Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone, a proposed mixed-use, multi-family overlay zone on a 31-acre site owned
by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District at 38 Crest Road West. The draft
Initial Study and Negative Declaration is available at the following link:
https://cms5.revize.com/revize/rollinghillsca/HE%201nitiai%20Study%20and%20NegDe
c.pdf
The site is home to Rancho Del Mar High School, the Beach Cities Learning Center and
the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority.
The City of Rolling Hills is considering the overlay zone as part of an update of its
General Plan and to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations
under the 4th and 5th Cycle RHNA requirements. The proposed overlay zone would
allow the addition of 15 multi-family units by right, including low-and very-low income
units. It would also allow for the continued use of public facilities, schools and
transportation facilities at the site.
The proposed zone change in itself does not propose or authorize any new
development; therefore, there are no impacts at this time. Any future development
would require its own environmental review per the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Comments on the draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration are due on
December 17, 2020. Because it cannot be anticipated at this stage what, if any, impacts
will occur with any future development, Staff did not offer comments at this time.
Staff plans to attend a virtual meeting of the Rolling Hills Planning Commission on
December 17, where a public hearing for the draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration
will be conducted. As of the writing of this memo, a staff report was not available.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 3:10PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Updated Letter Regarding Outdoor Dining Prohibition -City of Rancho Palos
Verdes
Letter to Rancho Palos Verdes 12 .11.20.pdf
From: Joshua Bobrowsky <jbobrowsky@ph .lacounty.gov>
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 6:40 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; DPH-Govaffairs <govaffairs@ph.lacounty.gov>; DPH-Director
<DPHDirector@ph.lacounty.gov>; executiveoffice@bos.lacounty.gov; Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov>; Lizardo,
Elizabeth <Elizardo@bos.lacounty.gov>; Baucum, Mark <mbaucum@bos.lacounty.gov>
Subject: RE: Updated Letter Regarding Outdoor Dining Prohibition-City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Good evening.
Please see the attached letter from Dr. Barbara Ferrer, Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health,
in response to your December 4th letter.
Best, Joshua
From: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca .gov>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2020 4:38PM
To: executiveoffice@bos.lacounty.gov; DPH -Director <DPHDirector@ph.lacounty.gov>; DPH-Govaffairs
<govaffairs@ph .lacounty.gov>; Joshua Bobrowsky <jbobrowsky@ph .lacounty .gov>
Cc: fourthdistrict@bos .lacounty.gov; Velazquez, Erika <EVelazquez@bos .lacounty.gov>; senator.allen@senate .ca .gov;
samuel.liu@sen.ca.gov; allison.towle@sen.ca.gov; assemblymember.muratsuchi@assembly.ca .gov;
melissa.ramoso@asm.ca.gov; aaron.forburger@asm .ca.gov ; CC <CC@rpvca.gov >; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov >;
Karina Banales <kbanales@rpvca.gov>; William Wynder (wwynder@awattorneys.com ) <wwynder@awattorneys.com >;
jPieper@cityofRH .net; BDieringer@cityofrh .net; jBiack@cityofRH .net; LMirsch@cityofrh.net; PWilson@cityofrh .net;
VelvethS@Ro llingHillsEstatesCA.gov ; SteveZ@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; JudyM@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov;
BrittH@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; FrankZ@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov ; citycouncil@pvestates.org;
jacki@southbaycities.org; Eileen Hupp <eileen@palosverdeschamber.com >
Subject: Updated Letter Regarding Outdoor Dining Prohibition -City of Rancho Palos Verdes
CAUTION : External Email. Proceed Responsibly.
Good Afternoon,
Please see the attached updated letter from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes regarding the recent Health Officer Order
prohibiting outdoor dining in Los Angeles County.
Thank you,
Megan Barnes
1
Senior Administrative Analyst
City Manager's Office
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5226
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
2
BARBARA FERRER, Ph .D .• M.P.H .. M.Ed .
Director
MUNTU DAVIS, M.D .. M.P.H .
County Health Offi c er
MEGAN McCLAIRE, M.S.P.H.
Chief Deputy Director
31 3 North Figueroa Street, Suite 806
Los Angeles. CA 9001 2
TEL (213) 288-811 7 • FAX (2 13) 975-12 73
www.publicheallh.lacounty.gov
December 11 , 2020
The Honorable Eric Alegria
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palo s Verdes, CA 90275
Dear Mayor Alegria:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Hilda L. Solis
First Disl ricl
Holly J. Mitchell
Second District
Sheila Kuehl
Th ird Dis l ricl
Janice Hahn
Fo urth Dis tri ct
Kathryn Barger
Fift h Dislricl
Thank you for the City of Rancho Palos Verde 's December 4 , 202 0 letter written to the Board of
Supervisors and myself regarding the City 's concerns with the County 's Health Officer 's
Temporary Targeted Safer at Home Order issued in late November.
Since your letter, and on December 6, 2020 , the State Public Health Officer issued a Regional
Stay At Home Order (State Order). The State Order was issued in response to an unprecedented
surge in cases and hospitalizations in California and across the country . Because of this surge,
the State Public Health Officer determined that immediate action was needed to prevent many
hospital Inten sive Care Units (ICU) from reaching capacity before the end of the y ear.
In November, the County Health Officer anticipated thi s surge, and took immediate action to
attempt to slow the spread of COVID-19 within Los Angeles County. The County Health
O ffic er issued the Temporary Targeted Order that discontinued in-person dining at restaurants.
The State 's December 6 Order required that same temporary in-person dining prohibition just 11
days later. The County 's Health Officer ha s now issued a new Order that aligns with the new
State Order. The State and County Orders are a reaction to the rapidly increasing numbers of
case s and hospitalizations. Today , County Public Health announced 13 ,815 new COVID-19
cases and that 3,624 COVID-19 positive persons are hospitalized. Those are the highest
numbers in our County at an y time in this pandemic. Soon , there will be more than 4 ,000
hospitali zations , and currently adult ICU bed availability hovers at just 10%.
Hon. Mayor Alegria
December II, 2020
Page 2
Although the COVID-I9 case rates in the South Bay are lower than overall County case rates,
COVID-I9 case rates in South Bay cities, such as Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Palos
Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills Estates, and Rancho Palos Verdes have doubled or tripled since
mid-September. To combat these alarming increases Public Health asks the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes to ask its residents to stay at home as much as possible during the length of the
Regional Stay At Home Order, and when necessary to go out to do so safely while social
distancing and wearing a face covering.
Thank you again for your letter. If you have questions or concerns, please contact Joshua
Bobrowsky at jbobrowsky@ph.lacounty.gov or (2I3) 288-787I.
Sincerely,
Barbara Ferrer, Ph.D., M.P.H., M.Ed.
Director
BF/rr
cc: Supervisor JaniceK. Hahn, Fourth Supervisorial District
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Re: Consent Calendar item J
Sharon Yarber <SYarber@firstam.com>
Monday, December 14, 2020 3:07 PM
CityCierk
CC 12/15 mtg
I strongly support the Council's adoption of a resolution opposing the LA County Health Officer's prohibition
on outdoor dining. I also encourage the City to do a "work around" as Manhattan Beach has done, and set up
tables and benches where people can "rest" while they consume the food that they picked up from restaurants
offering take out service.
I would also suggest and strongly support communications from our Council to (i) Governor Newsom,
chastising him for his hypocrisy in dining at The French Laundry in violation of his own edicts and demanding
that outdoor dining be permitted, and (ii) Board of Supervisors member Sheila Kuehl, chastising her for
declaring that outdoor dining was "very dangerous", voting to prohibit it, then turning around the same day and
dining outdoors in Santa Monica. These hypocrites need to hear from our city officials that "rules for thee but
not for me" simply don't pass muster and are utterly unacceptable.
Sharon Yarber
******************************************************************************************
This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named
above or may contain information that is legally privileged.
If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are
hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the
original message and any copies immediately thereafter.
If you received this email as a commercial message and would like to opt out of future commercial messages, please let
us know and we will remove you from our distribution list.
Thank you.
******************************************************************************************
FAFLD
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Katie Lozano
Monday, December 14, 2020 2:39 PM
CityCierk
Fw: Portuguese Bend Trail Network
fyi, this should be late carr for the Preserve access item too.
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours . To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines . Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit . Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Ron Dragoo
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:18 PM
To: Sheri Hastings
Cc: CC; Katie Lozano; CityCierk
Subject: RE: Portuguese Bend Trail Network
Dear Ms . Hastings,
Thank you for your comments. Public comments received will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence in
advance of Saturday's meeting .
Best regards,
Ron Dragoo, PE
Principal Engineer
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours . To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working
on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in
advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are
limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of
department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 11:10 AM
1 /J.
To: Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Portuguese Bend Trail Network
Please respond.
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
C ITY OF
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca .gov
www.rpvca.gov
J'l Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named . Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation .
From: Sheri Hastings <sherihastings@yahoo.com >
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 9:14AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >; Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca .gov >; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov >
Subject: Re : Portuguese Bend Trail Network
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members:
As a resident of Portuguese Bend and as a hiker and equestrian in the Portuguese Bend community and as someone
who cares deeply about preserving local wildlife, I am writing to express concern over the impacts of the Landslide
Mitigation Project as well as the parking and access projects.
Any proposed landslide mitigation project impacts us . Parking and access projects impact us .
In 1984, the city approved The Trail Network Plan to enhance and maintain the trails . City staff were directed to watch for
opportunity to enhance the trail network where other projects are proposed and initiated by staff. The plan included the
need for disaster evacuation , firefighting access and other emergency preparedness concerns. The Palos Verdes Loop
trail has already been disrupted. Due to erosion and lack of maintenance, new ways of getting through were created by
trail users who then encroached on private property , which was later closed off. These factors have led to the loss of full
segments of the trail network.
2
We ask that while you plan both the parking and landslide mitigation projects, as well as any future projects, you follow the
already adopted Trail Network Plan and look to enhance the trail network at every opportunity. This includes engineering
permanent trail routes, canyon crossings, erosion control and access to trails from the Portuguese Bend Community.
Access to Jack's Hat and Three Sisters is now at risk, dependent on property owners and conservancy to make a deal.
Since the Conservancy took over the land near me there have been more hikers and more large groups of hikers on the
trails. Large loud groups of people impacts the nesting birds and other wildlife on the trails. This puts more people on
fewer trails which affects us all, the habitat and public safety. Many hikers and bikers are unaware of safe behavior around
horses, so forcing all trail users into the same small space is extremely dangerous not only for equestrians, but also for
other trail users. And heavy usage it also impacts wildlife along those trails. Expand the trails but have fewer people on
them.
An expanded and managed trail network is crucial to safety. Please include the 1984 Trails Network plan in your plans.
Sincerely,
Sheri Hastings
Portuguese Bend Resident and Portuguese Bend Trail User
3
From: Ron Dragoo
Sent:
To:
Monday, December 14, 2020 2:26 PM
dgdiamant@gmail.com
Cc: Karina Banales; Megan Barnes; Katie Lozano; Matt Waters; Daniel Trautner; Cory Linder;
CC; CityCierk
Subject: RE : Landslide Mitigation Comments
Dear Ms . Diamond,
Thank you for your comments. Public comments received will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence in
advance of Saturday's meeting.
Best regards,
Ron Dragoo, PE
Principal Engineer
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working
on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in
advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are
limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of
department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:07 PM
To: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca .gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca .gov>; Daniel Trautner <DanieiT@rpvca .gov>; Cory
Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Karina Banales <kbanales@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Landslide Mitigation Comments
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
City Manager's Office
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5226
mbarnes@rpvca .gov
From: Donna Diamond <dgdiamant@gmail.com >
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 1:31 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca .gov >; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov >; Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca .gov >
1
Cc: Sheri Hastings <sherihastings@yahoo .com >
Subject: Landslide Mitigation Comments
Dear City Council Members:
Please see the attached letter regarding Landslide Mitigation and parking and access issues.
Thank-you,
Donna Diamond
atr..... ............
lr--r ~f
2
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, December 14, 2020 2:50PM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: Preserve Parking
From: Noreen Chambers <nchambers77@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:41 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Preserve Parking
Mayor Alegria and RPV City Council Members:
The parking south of Crenshaw continues to be a major issue. It was especially bad
during the last two weeks of November. Hikers are also creeping into "Permit Parking"
only areas, knowing that LA County Sheriffs will not issue minor parking tickets due to
the pandemic. Visitors continue to park in the "Loading/Unloading" area on Crenshaw
for several hours, as well.
The agenda for the December 15 meeting mentions approval of a 90-day pilot shuttle
program to augment public access to key Preserve areas. With that, please include a
trial 90-day "No Parking South of Crenshaw" which will encourage use of the
shuttle. For safety, please establish a temporary parking ban on stopping, parking or
standing on Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Road to the Burma Rd.
In addition, please make it mandatory that all visitors to the Preserve wear a facial
mask to prevent the spreading of Covid 19.
Regards,
Noreen and Bruce Chambers
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
1
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 2:03PM
CityCierk
FW: Nature preserve parking
From: bryan bergsteinsson <bryan_bergsteinsson@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 9:59AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: DONALD DOUTHWRIGHT <dddrpv@verizon.net>
Subject: Nature preserve parking
Happy holidays, I am a resident of the Island View and have watched with concern as the congestion created by the
nature preserve has intensified. We all agree that there should be access and realize the problem is most likely
compounded by the virus. That said the nature preserve is well know and will continue to be popular. Given that we need
more permanent solutions. The most obvious of these is creating permanent parking in the ample area available along PV
Drive South. I realize local residents there may not be excited about this, but the land available at the southern end of the
flying triangle is away from any residences and PV drive is the main thoroughfare around the peninsula. Thanks for
listening, Bryan Bergsteinsson
1 j_
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 2:02 PM
CityCierk
FW: Comment re:NOP for Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation EIR
PBLandslide19Dec2020.pdf
From: Melody Colbert <PVPHAssociation@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 10:36 AM
To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Comment re:NOP for Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation EIR
Dear Mr. Dragoo et. al.:
Attached please find a letter from the Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemens' Association in response to the
request for comments on the NOP for the Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation EIR.
Please acknowledge receipt of this correspondence at your convenience. Thank you.
Melody Colbert
Treasurer, Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemens' Assn.
1
PALOS VERDES PENINSULA
-------------------
HORSEMEN'S
ASSOCIATION
December 14, 2020
Subject: Comments re: NOP for Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation EIR
City of Rancho Palos Verde Public Works Department
Attn: Mr. Ron Dragoo, City Engineer (publicworks@rpvca.gov)
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391
Dear Mr. Dragoo:
It is encouraging to see that the report by the Chambers Group recognizes that impacts to
recreational opportunities need to be addressed in the upcoming EIR, including the effect that
the proposed project will have on trails within the Preserve.
On behalf of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemen's Association we would like to request that
temporary interruptions in trail use by equestrians be minimized to the fullest extent possible
and that damage to any and all trails, regardless of whether or not they are designated for use
by equestrians, be promptly repaired such that the trails are, at a minimum, restored to their
prior condition. Ideally, trails in need of repair or restoration should be improved from their pre-
project condition. It is consistent with the Trails Network Plan that when projects are undertaken
that provide opportunities for enhancement of trails, that the City avail itself of such
opportunities. Please take advantage of this opportunity to make much needed improvements to
the conditions of the trails in the Preserve.
We also ask that the DEIR address with specificity what impact, if any, the project will have on
(i) connectivity between trails within the trail network, and (ii) the classification or potential
reclassification of trail use. We are concerned that if horses must traverse open culverts and
swales to go from one trail to another that such placement of the culverts and swales will
impede connectivity and dramatically reduce the recreational opportunities for equestrians. We
are also concerned that trails where equestrians are currently permitted to ride will be altered in
a manner that will render them no longer appropriate for being classified as equestrian use
trails. While the number of trails in total may not change, we want assurance that the number of
equestrian approved trails will not change.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
PALOS VERDES PENINSULA HORSEMENS' ASSOCIATION, a California not for profit
corporation
By: Cfiar{ene O':Nei{
Charlene O'Neil, President
cc: RPV City Council (cc@rpvca.gov)
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 2:01 PM
CityCierk
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Parking Mitigation Status Report-comments
PVPLC Dec 2020.docx
From: czyetz@cox.net <czyetz@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 10:50 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Parking Mitigation Status Report-comments
Please find my comments regarding the Preserve and related access.
Thank you.
1 f/
As a 22-year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, I have seen access to the lovely local trails become
increasingly difficult. I use to be able to hike from my home to Forrestal Nature Reserve using the Nike
trail to the Seaview trail now blocked by a chain link fence at Oue Viento Canyon Creek. Hiking up
George F Canyon all the way to Hesse's Gap was feasible without running into huge signs restricting
access. Loved the hike from Palos Verdes Drive North up the Hammerschma Trail to Storm Hill Park,
which Mystic Canyon Stables has now closed access. I have been unable to locate safe parking for access
to the San Ramon Preserve. I wait until winter to hike Portuguese Bend Reserve, with parking at Del
Cerro (public?) Park no longer available and street parking severely limited. I enjoy the Ailor trail named
after Bill and Barbara Ailor who worked hard to create the open space. The open space created in part
with government funds with the intent to offer these open spaces for use by the public.
I recognize the challenge of balancing the needs of the few (local homeowners) to those of the many
(general public) and it is my hope that the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will collaborate with the
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) to find an equitable and reasonable solution in
keeping with the intent of the Portuguese Bend Reserve and the other reserves under the PVPLC
stewardship.
Thank you for your consideration of the value of access to these open spaces and the joy that it brings to
Rancho Palos Verdes citizens.
Catherine Zyetz
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 2:01 PM
CityCierk
FW: Urgent: Comments for upcoming Council Meeting on 12/15
From: Shannon Kilcullen <shannon.kilcullen@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 10:52 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Urgent: Comments for upcoming Council Meeting on 12/15
To whom it may concern,
We are in favor of more restricted parking on Crenshaw, South of Crest, specifically on the oceanside of the
street. Even with the reduced parking that was recently introduced, traffic violations have not improved. This stretch
of Crenshaw which is a neighborhood street is chaotic with urban-like traffic, illegal u-turn activity, speeding, etc.
Because there is the prospect of patrons finding a parking spot along this section of Crenshaw, they come speeding
down the street trying to snag parking before other cars. When they are unsuccessful they angrily make an illegal U turn
and speed off to find alternate parking near StJohn Fisher or north of Crest. Even more scary they sometimes will look
for parking in the surrounding neighborhoods (DeiCerro, Island View, Countryside, etc) which is also prohibited. Because
this is a suburban/neighborhood access point there are many residents, children, pets, etc that are frequently put at
danger. My own family is included as are other hikers who are patrolling the area after driving and parking legally. !!
really is just a matter oftime before we have a serious injury or death occur due to the unsafe traffic. We've personally
had close calls of being rear ended, or causing a rear end because a car abruptly stops to grab a parking spot or almost
been run down as cars SPEED off in frustration when no parking is found. We've been put at risk in our own car when
driving to/from our home as well as when we are exercising/walking in the area. In addition, we've witnessed the same
close calls with others residents and visitors in the area. Due to COVID and people looking for more outdoor activities,
increased social media highlighting the area as a hiking attraction, etc this unsafe activity is 7 days a week whereas
before the area would usually be busier on holidays and weekends only. In our opinion, due to all of these changes, the
rules for parking need to be updated as well. Traffic and parking needs to be redirected to areas more suitable to
handle this amount and frequency of traffic and population, such as City Hall, etc. Circumstances change so rules need
to adapt as well. While people are apprehensive to change, in this case the changes proposed are to keep EVERYONE
safe.
Below is what we hope will be seriously opposed, proposed and implemented to keep residents AND the public AND the
hikers SAFE:
Converting all or a portion of Del Cerro Park to a parking lot for the preserve
Oppose because:
Adding a parking lot near the Burma Rd. trailhead is inconsistent with the goal of minimizing traffic congestion at the
end of Crenshaw. It would intensify traffic congestion in the area that is already experiencing the most severe impacts of
traffic problems and noise.
Del Cerro Park was donated by the Federal Government to the City for use as a neighborhood park in perpetuity, not as
a parking lot.
1
The City has invested significant funds to create a beautiful green space for outdoor recreation.
The park and preserve serve different purposes. The park's intended uses are centered around family and neighborhood
recreation activities, many of which are not compatible with preserve restrictions: children playing games for exercise
and socializing, family picnics, kite flying, ball/frizbee throwing, neighborly chats, dog socialization, soccer team
practices.
The park's purposes are equally important as the nature preserve. By using the park for parking space, the City would be
indicating that creating more parking for access to the preserve is a more important priority than the
family/neighborhood recreation that the park supports and encourages-a philosophy that we respectfully do not agree
with.
It would significantly diminish the ambience of the neighborhood.
Establish major trailheads at other locations around the preserve
Support the creation and promotion of other major trail heads as well as smaller entrances to the preserve because:
The preserve is a resource for the entire peninsula (and beyond) and responsibility for access should be shared by all
RPV residents.
Trailheads should be established where they are not close to residential areas to avoid negatively impacting the quality
of life of residents.
Other locations for major trailheads should be created with parking and appropriate amenities to equitably distribute
visitors throughout the 1,400-acre preserve and 73 miles of trails.
A major trailhead off PV Drive South should be established.
The trailhead at city hall should be beautified to encourage visits to that area.
Gateway Park off PV Drive South was originally considered the appropriate place for the primary entrance into the
preserve.
Establishing a pilot shuttle program that transports visitors from city hall to stops along PV Drive South and back to city
hall would be a good way to better distribute visitors throughout the preserve.
The shuttle should not be used to transport people to the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trailheads, as that would increase
rather than reduce the overuse of those trail heads.
Establishing additional parking within the preserve
Oppose because:
It would require vehicles to drive behind Amber Sky homes, disturbing neighbors with constant noise and excessive dust.
The funding agencies unanimously agree that doing so would not be compatible with the City's approved NCCP/HCP
(Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan). The preserve habitat configuration was not
designed to accommodate a parking area.
Thank you so much for your consideration and attention to this matter. Your work is appreciated.
2
The Kilcullen Family
9 Crestwind Drive
3
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, December 14, 2020 3:10PM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: Agenda item 2 Regular business Dec 15
From: donna thehulberts.com <donna@thehulberts.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 3:07 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Agenda item 2 Regular business Dec 15
To the City Council Members of Rancho Palos Verdes:
I am writing with respect to item 2 of the regular business for the December 15 meeting-the recommendations
regarding parking for the Reserves. I am very much in favor of an approach that would result in alleviating the
congestion and safety issues currently experienced by residents close to the entrance for the Burma Road Trail. I
support greater distribution of parking in other areas around the Peninsula. I have lived in Del Cerro for many years and
have witnessed the many problems associated with the limited parking and seemingly unlimited demand for public
access to the trail. I strongly support the efforts to try to alleviate the problems. To hopefully assist the City Council in
its evaluation, I would like to make a couple of comments regarding the proposed solution as well as some comments
made by the public regarding access to parking.
With respect to the proposed solution, I believe there are currently two major issues regarding the current parking on
Crenshaw south of Crest near the entrance to the Burma Road Trail. The first is the stunningly unsafe traffic maneuvers
people are willing to engage in to obtain the closest parking spot they can. (It is incongruous to me that people take
such steps to obtain closer access when they are coming to walk on the trail anyway.) The second issue is the
disturbances created to the adjacent neighbors, especially in the early morning hours on the weekend when hikers are
waiting for the trail to open. They arrive well before dawn and often congregate and talk quite loudly without regard for
those residents who may not want to get up before dawn on the weekend. The beeps of car alarms add to the
disturbance. I believe both issues are caused by the fact that people want not just any parking space, but rather the
closest one. I also believe that there will never be enough close parking to the trailhead, given the demand for access to
the trail. For that reason, I believe attempting to add a few spaces in Del Cerro Park or a small lot within the Reserve
itself will not alleviate the problems, but rather force others to endure similar problems.
As I recall one of the major reasons the street parking on Crenshaw close to the park was eliminated was because of the
limitations on ingress and egress not just for residents but potentially to emergency vehicles as well, caused by those
seeking parking who engaged in sudden stops, unanticipated U-turns, speeding and other maneuvers to prevent
another motorist from obtaining the desired space, and double parking to wait for a space thereby impairing the flow of
traffic. That area of Crenshaw is very narrow and was even more ill equipped to accommodate the dangerous activity
that was routinely occurring there (and is continuing to occur at the remaining street parking areas on Crenshaw South
of Crest). In addition, I do not understand how replacing the open space of the park with a parking lot will improve the
aesthetic of people traveling here to appreciate nature.
Similar points to those above can be made with respect to providing parking spaces within the rReserve, with the
additional point that residences adjacent to the road to the proposed parking spaces will now have to endure not only
vehicular noise but also dust and fumes.
1
To eliminate the traffic safety danger, it may be that all parking on Crenshaw South of Crest will need to be eliminated
entirely, however before reaching that conclusion it seems that the institution of a parking reservation system should at
least be tried. Additionally, encouraging parking on Crenshaw North of Crest may provide a solution. Regardless of the
ultimate solution, it is imperative to end the outrageous and dangerous traffic behaviors referred to above.
With respect to some public comments I read concerning the access to parking, I want to respond to the assumption
that regulating parking is equivalent to prohibiting public access, and also to the comment that regulating parking is
somehow illegal or immoral. I am unaware of any attempt by the Council to favor residents over non-residents in the
distribution of the currently available parking spaces. The fact that residents may be closer to the trail and not require a
parking space because they can walk from their homes is no evidence of prohibited favoritism. The fact that parking
may not be as convenient as one would like does not prohibit access to the trails.
There are many venues in Southern California with difficult parking situations-the Hollywood Bowl, the prior site of the
Getty Museum, the Rose Bowl, etc. The fact that parking is difficult does not prohibit access. Shuttles are available and
routinely used by thousands for the Bowls. Parking reservations were required for the old Getty. The solutions may
not be convenient, but people adapt and use them. I noted that the adjective "reasonable" was used to describe the
parking requirement. The concept of "reasonableness" at least with respect to tort law requires looking at all the
circumstances of a situation, not just the convenience to one side or the other. Evaluating all the circumstances should
be employed in finding a solution to this situation. In that vein I believe a finding of "reasonableness" with respect to
limiting the street parking on Crenshaw south of Crest is a supportable if not the only conclusion when consideration is
given to the safety hazards of the current situation, the right of residents to quiet enjoyment of their property, and the
fact that the City has not acted hastily but has endeavored to solve the problems through various proposed solutions
over many years. However, I understand the importance of determining whether additional parking North of Crest and
the parking app system might provide a workable solution before eliminating all parking.
To further support my conclusion that convenient parking for all is not the test for access, I would like to share that this
summer when I was in Sedona, my daughter and I wanted to visit "Devil's Bridge," a trail which parenthetically is not in
a residential or urban area. There is one parking lot near the trail head which the internet (and for those who still use it
the AAA travel book) describe as limited in size (about 40 spaces). The access road to the trail prohibits parking along it,
and if visitors cannot find a space in the lot they must park on the highway and walk about a mile on the access road to
the trailhead. Such parking limitations are acceptable to trail walkers in Arizona, and I can see no reason why some
parking regulation should be considered unreasonable for those in Southern California.
Sincerely,
Donna Hulbert
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 3:10PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Public comments for Dec 15th City Council Meeting
PortugeseBendParkingCommentsCAC2.pdf
From: Chris Cox <caccox@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 3:06PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Public comments for Dec 15th City Council Meeting
Please find attached my comments regarding the proposed parking changes near Portugeese Bend Nature preserve.
I would like these comments read as part ofthe city council meeting on 112/15/20 and made a part of the record on this
issue.
Please let me know if you need any additional information from me (contact info, etc).
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Christopher Cox
Torrance, CA
310-616-1790
1 2.
I am grateful to the city of RPV for helping to fund and provide public access to the Portuguese Bend nature
preserve. It is a wonderful place! It is the only undeveloped area to hike in the South Bay. And it is also the only
place to hike or bike with a significant elevation change in the South Bay, which makes it an excellent place to
exercise. This is especially important in the Covid-19 era as gyms are closed and the preserve may be many
people's only access to strenuous exercise.
However, I do not understand the city's rationale for reducing parking. The trails are uncrowded, unpolluted
with trash or litter, filled with friendly people (socially distanced, of course), and all the visitors treat it, and their
fellow hikers, bicyclists and equestrians, with courtesy and respect-the trails are a great example of what is
right in the South Bay, our state, and our nation. Again, I don't understand why the city is trying to limit access.
It appears to me, as I have been unable to find any of the city's staff reports regarding the parking "problem,"
that the city and its residents dislike having residents of other cities visit the preserve. This is at best elitist, and,
at worst, racist. I see many black and Latino people on the trails-far more than I see in my day-to-day activities
in that area of PV. In this era of increased awareness to social justice, the city council and the staff preparing the
parking recommendations should be aware that the proposals to reduce parking and increase parking fees to
non RPV residents has a disproportionate impact on protected groups and may be in violation offederal anti-
discrimination laws.
Regardless of any legal protections, the proposed parking restrictions are unfair and unjust-the goal of the
proposal is to make accessing the preserve more difficult, and prioritize access for wealthy locals. Imagine if
Manhattan Beach denied beach access to nonresidents and had a specialulocals only" free beach parking lot-
that is analogous to what RPV has proposed.
Several years ago, parking was allowed on both sides of Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd and in the del Cero
Park parking lot. At that time, it was not difficult to find parking near del Cero Park. In the last few years, the
city has repeatedly reduced parking south of Crenshaw, and instead encouraged parking North of Crest Rd on
Crenshaw. At the same time, the city set aside the parking lot at del Cero Park for locals only. This change
moved parking from an uncrowded, lightly traveled section of Crenshaw, to a VERY busy section, which is much
less safe for visitors and local residents. Decreasing parking is a recipe for MORE congestion as people double
park while waiting for a parking spot. Once the new parking rules go into effect, you will see lots of people
double parked and backing up long distances on Crenshaw north of Crest Rd on weekends trying to obtain a
parking spot-this steep and twisting road is a very dangerous section on which to have cars double parked,
backing up hill and parallel parking. In contrast, increasing parking spots south of Crenshaw would increase
safety and reduce congestion.
Again, thank you for funding and providing access to Portuguese Bend nature preserve. I encourage the city
council and its staff to carefully consider the issues of fairness, social justice, and discrimination before it
implements reduced parking availability and increased fees for accessing the only area of undeveloped nature in
the South Bay.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this important issue.
Sincerely,
Christopher Cox
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 3:10PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Use of Lot at 6359 Tarragon Rd. for Trails Public Parking
From: Philip Robinson <probinson1@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 3:04 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Use of Lot at 6359 Tarragon Rd. for Trails Public Parking
RPV City Counsel,
At tomorrows City Council meeting you will be asked to consider as a part of a traffic study the use of the city owned lot
at 6359 Tarragon Rd. for public parking for trail hikers. I request that you eliminate this lot from the traffic study and
from further consideration as a public parking lot. This is a residential lot in a residential neighborhood that has
residential houses on both sides of it. Consider if the city decided to purchase and tear down the house next to yours
and put in a public parking lot. Public parking on our streets is restricted because we previously experienced public
parking when the Abalone Cove parking became pay-to-park. Then the public parked on our streets we had trash in our
yards and unwanted activity in cars. The city has gone to substantial lengths to restrict public parking on the major
thoroughfares in the Del Cerro Park area, let alone on their residential streets. I request that you extend the same level
of consideration to the residents of Upper Abalone Cove.
There are a number of better parking possibilities on the study list: the purchase of U.S. Govt. at Point Vicente. This
should start immediately; approach Terranea about creating public parking on the upper portion of their property along
PV Drive; approach St. Peters By the Sea about the use of their parking on a non-interference basis; increase Abalone
Cove parking by using the area where Annies Stand used to be; explore adding public parking to the York development
just off of PV Drive. York has had insufficient parking for his events in the past and has been allowed to use city owned
Abalone Cove parking for free.; and, parking could be developed in the landslide area.
Increasing parking may only increase the load on the trail system and on the adjacent residential neighborhoods. While
originally well intentioned, the trail system has the potential to become an attractive nuisance for the city, not an asset.
I suggest that in addition to considering increased parking you also consider reducing the trail system. Trails and
trailheads that are close to residential neighborhoods should be considered for closure. The trailheads that are allowed
to continue should be close to established public parking.
Thanks you your time,
Philip Robinson
3205 Barkentine Rd.
RPV 90275
310-377-6279
416probinson@gmail.com
1 !)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 1:59PM
CityCierk
FW: Provision for elderly RPV citizens in PV Preserve Plan
From: Dorie and Brooks <xcskiers@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 11:36 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Provision for elderly RPV citizens in PV Preserve Plan
In your parking plan for the Palos Verdes Preserve there needs to be special provision for elderly RPV citizens(> 75
years old) to be able to park closer to the Preserve walking trails.
Dorothy & James Chadwick, 28165 S. Ridgecove Ct, RPV 90275
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 1:56 PM
CityCierk
FW: Parking & Problems -Portuguese Bend Reserve
From: JEFF ROBBINS <drtoy1@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 12:26 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Parking & Problems-Portuguese Bend Reserve
Attention: RPV City Council
In the past 60 days, conditions have worsened in the area on Crenshaw between Crest and Del Cere Park.
Major issues are:
1. Illegal speeding on Crenshaw, endangering pedestrians, often those who are very young.
2. Illegal vehicle operations on Crenshaw and Crest, including racing, u-turns and physical skirmishes for
parking places .
3. Excessive littering, including hikers garbage, bottles and abundant dog waste left irresponsibly the
grass on Crenshaw.
4. Use of alcoholic beverages by backpackers on Crenshaw and within Island View.
5. Backpackers "camp ing out" for extended periods of time on Island view property; including the yards of
private homes .
6. Dangerous, excessive speeding by off-road motorcycles on Santa Catalina, Santa Barbara and San
Clemente in Island View.
7. Hostile attitudes by hikers when politely asked to lease pick up their dog waste and beverage bottles.
8. Worsening general lack of respect by backpackers for residents of Island View.
We respectfully request that the parking be reduced and that law enforcement be available more frequently to
control the hikers who are rude, and disrespectful of both public and private property.
Thank you,
Jeffrey and Marguerite Robbins
Island View Residents
1 ~-
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 1:50PM
CityCierk
FW: Agenda Item #2 RPV City Council Meeting December 15, 2020
From: Michael Lebovitz <bardolator1230@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 1:48 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: DeiCerro_HOA@hotmail.com; Ana Paludi <anapaludi@mac.com>
Subject: Agenda Item #2 RPV City Council Meeting December 15, 2020
I am a resident in the Del Cerro neighborhood of RPV and am writing with respect to the ongoing parking situation at the
Portuguese Bend trailhead. We appreciate the Council's continued analysis of this issue and its initial efforts in curbing
the ongoing and increasing parking problem. As you consider additional measures, I ask you to bear in mind the
following:
1. Any solution, in particular a reservation system, that requires constant enforcement will not work. People will ignore
it, park illegally and take the risk of a ticket. While a high fine will deter one person in the future, the system will not
deter everyone else. Absent a full time guard giving tickets on a daily basis, a reservation system will not accomplish
anything. This is evidenced by the fact that every single day there are cars parked in the passenger loading zone. Once
in a while a ticket is given but this is basically extra parking that was not intended.
2. Whatever social media efforts are being made are insufficient. Here are some excerpts from recent social media
posts about the preserve:
* "you can usually park at Del Cerro Park"
*"park along the streets of a small neighborhood"
* "you start off in a lovely neighborhood"
* "Street Parking, Private Lot Parking"
More consistent effort needs to be made to alert potential visitors to the parking limitations. A good start would be
updating the PVPLC and RPVCA sites to specifically highlight the parking issue and direct visitors to other
trails. Currently these say nothing about parking or alternative access points.
Take a look at the official and unofficial sites for the Hollywood Sign hike. They provide detailed information about
parking challenges and direct visitors to specific locations. A flashing sign at the top of the hill AFTER visitors have
already made the trip to the trailhead is useless. Once a visitor has arrived, they are not going anywhere else. There are
ample alternative access points, in particular Ladera Linda, but more must be done to get visitors there.
3. The red curbing must be continued and extended, at least to include the passenger loading area which is being used
as a white curb. Unless and until a comprehensive and enforceable solution, red curbing is the only option at this
time. If the red curbing is extended and expanded, social media will quickly get the point.
1
Thank you for your consideration and your continued efforts on this important issue.
Michael Lebovitz
bardolator1230@gmail.com
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 1:42 PM
CityCierk
FW: Potential Parking Lot at 6359 Tarragon Rd.
From: Michael Garcia <ferguslilly@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 1:36PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Potential Parking Lot at 6359 Tarragon Rd.
Dear City of RPV,
This email is in regard to the letter we received from the city 3 days before the scheduled meeting which will be held
tomorrow December 15th 2020 during a pandemic and during the holiday season.
Since receiving this letter Saturday December 12th, 2020, we have not been able to sleep and have been extremely distressed
due to the knowledge of a parking lot being considered directly abutting our property at 6350 Tarragon Rd. Not only will we
live with the constant noise, we will also see this parking lot while inside our home and outside in our yard front and back. We
will never be able to get away from it. I don't believe this is holistic. We have resided at this property for 24 yrs and would
have never purchased this property if it were right next door to a public parking lot. We moved to Rancho Palos Verdes
because it is supposed to be peaceful and pastoral. Not to be next door to a public parking lot and all that comes with it.
Also, this lot of 6359 Tarragon Rd. is part of a natural flood plain and should remain a flood plain. It would be great if this
property could go the the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy, but I believe because ofthe flood plain it cannot. So why a parking
lot, this does not make sense. This is not holistic.
We already live with the Edison substation and their private road access right next to our home. This includes a utility
easement also right next to our home, which means, telephone, cable, gas and electric utilities and gardeners constantly
working. Because ofthis we deal on a daily basis with trucks, vans, construction equipment (sometimes massive), trailers and
people completing this work. This means we have trucks and equipment constantly blocking our driveways, double parked in
the middle of our street, having to go and find the workers and ask them to move their vehicles so we can enter or leave our
property. Sometimes our trash does not get picked up because one of the trucks is blocking our trash cans. With no fault of
their own, sometimes these subcontractors are parked here for hours waiting for someone from Edison to come and open the
gate for them. Our neighbors and us are constantly having to pick up trash left by these workers.
I understand having a utility now in our current times brings along with that the threat of terrorism. So now we would be in
constant additional threat because of it's proximity to the parking lot. What about security issues?
Next we would like address the daily activity from both vehicles and people that already exists here on our street from the day
visitors who are looking to park and hike. We have restricted parking on our street because of the massive amount of people
that come here already. People park anyway and we constantly have to inform people that they cannot park here. This
usually has an angry response from the visitor but who normally ends up leaving, but we are left with the damage of the
exchange. We have people visit here on a daily basis, sometimes with dogs who relieve themselves on our street and we have
to pick up their mess. We are also left with trash from the day visitors which we have to pickup. We had to put chains across
our u-shaped driveway due to safety concerns from both the visitors and utility workers using our driveway as a u-turn. We
also see people drive up, stop at the end of our street, jump out of their vehicle run into the lot, drop their pants and use the
lot as a urinal and we smell the stench from that. We can smell cigarette smoke from visitors which deeply concerns us that
1
they will start a fire in our risky fire zone. This is happening more and more. We already deal with a tremendous amount of
responsibility and stress due to our proximity to the trails. Our response is no parking lot. This is not holistic.
All of this has increased greatly with social media. We now live with an increase of all of the above and also having to see and
hear emergency vehicles and their sirens up to a dozen times a day and sometimes more. This has brought with it a stress to
our daily lives, which will increase greatly having a public parking lot right next door to our home and now what do we doe
with the overflow looking for spots on our street, this will only increase. This is not holistic.
I believe whoever came up with this proposal does not understand there are already parking spaces which exist, but there
needs to be better signage to direct these day visitors where they can park.
Our home is also on Palos Verdes Dr. South which has become a major thoroughfare. We already hear traffic all times of the
day and night, this was not so when we moved here. It is already difficult to sleep during the night. Vehicles drive past our
home during the night at exorbitant speeds, which awakens us many times during the night. Then with the addition of a
parking lot we will have hundreds of cars looking for one of the 30 parking spots in this parking lot right next door to our
home. Which will bring with it, Security issues, traffic jams, traffic accidents, honking vehicles, emergency vehicles, danger
crossing our streets, fights, vandalism, graffiti, trespassers onto our property, steeling of our property, homeless and danger
to our property and our beings. We recently discovered bare foot prints in our backyard (we never go barefoot in our
yard). We already have trespassers, this would be a nightmare. This is not holistic. No public parking lot here.
A public parking lot placed in between 4 residences (which will be the most impacted) but it will adversely affect the entire
neighborhood. This is not holistic.
There is also a concern regarding our property value. If I would have never purchased a home next to a public parking lot,
who will? It is unacceptable to think of the shortsightedness of this proposal, this is not a holistic approach. Who would this
be holistic for, certainly not the home owners. This is not holistic.
There is ample parking spots for visitors, they just need to be directed to these lots.
So my conclusion for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is to decline the parking lot at 6359 Tarragon Rd.
Thank you,
Michael and Maria Garcia
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 1:22 PM
CityCierk
FW: Shuttle Service to Ladera Linda
From: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 1:20 PM
To: Irene Henrikson <irene.henrikson@cox.net>
Cc: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Herb Stark <herbertstark@cox.net>;
CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca .gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Shuttle Service to Ladera Linda
Ms. Henrikson,
Thank you for your email. For clarity, there is a Shuttle Service being proposed in the staff report; however the proposal
states that the shuttle will stay down on Palos Verdes Drive South. A likely stop would be down at the Forrestal I PVDS
intersection, therefore not driving up Forrestal.
This proposal was based on Council direction for staff to analyze. The route, and the shuttle program as a whole, will be
considered by the Council at tomorrow night's meeting.
If you have any questions or comments, please let me know.
THANKS, CORY
CORY A. LINDER, Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Department of Recreation and Parks
310-544-5260
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To he lp prevent the spread of COV ID-19 , visitors are required to wear
face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines . Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely .
If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by cal ling the appropriate department and follow al l posted
directions during your visit . Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed . For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Irene Henrikson <irene.henrikson@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 1:02 PM
To: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov >
Cc: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com > <mickeyrodich@gmail.com >; Herb Stark <herbertstark@cox.net>
Subject: Shuttle Service to Ladera Linda
1 J..
We, who live in Ladera Linda neighborhood, are extremely concerned about a potential"shuttle service" to the LL
Park. You are potentially bringing crime, and people who may disrupt our ecosystem on our trails into our area, not to
mention more traffic as these people return in their cars again. Please rethink long and hard on this idea. We do NOT
want a shuttle service in our neighborhood.
Respectfully, Irene and Paul Henrikson
32404 Searaven Dr. RPV 90275
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14,2020 1:19PM
CityCierk
FW: City Council Agenda 12/15/20 Preserve Parking and Access Report
From: words4db@aol.com <words4db@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 1:18PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: City Council Agenda 12/15/20 Preserve Parking and Access Report
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
My husband and I have lived in Island View for eighteen years.
Our neighborhood supported the development of the RPV Preserve and we even had several fund raisers to help support
the Preserve.
We never dreamed that we would be inundated by thousands of people I hikers I bikers, all day, everyday, all year!
We are writing to you and asking for your support now!. The situation is out of control! Burma Road trail and Rattlesnake
trail have visitors
every day starting at 4:00-to 5:00AM and continuing all day and into the night until 8:00-9:00pm.
The traffic on Crenshaw south of Crest Rd is horrible! People double park to unload ... they make U turns in the middle of
Crenshaw, jay walk in front of the traffic and leave their trash
all over our parkway.
Burma Road Trail is a two way trail ... it is imperative that the city open parking areas on the other side of the preserve
and allow people to access the trail system at that point.
RVP and the Preserve have plenty of areas that they can develop public parking without having to use "neighborhood
street" parking.
Also, PLEASE paint all the curbs on Crenshaw south of Crest Rd. "RED" this would help illuminate the traffice hazard in
our neigborhoods. There is plenty of street parking on both sides of
Crenshaw north of Crest Rd and on Crestridge Rd.
Over the years our four neighborhoods have support both the Preserve and the City of RPV. Now we ask you to support
us! Sadly, there is no going back to the peace and quite of what used to be.
But the city council has the power to take action and support us by finding a way to direct traffic away from the Burma and
Rattlesnake trail head entrances.
You can provide off street parking at the bottom of Burma Road Trail for the general public.
Thank you for all you do and thank you for considering our request, our plea ... please help us!
Best regards,
Richard and Diane Blade
1 J.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 1:02 PM
CityCierk
FW: Please preserve access to the Portugese Bend Reserve
From: Brian Thompson <brianthompson3@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 11:23 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Please preserve access to the Portugese Bend Reserve
Palos Verdes City Council,
The Portugese Bend Reserve is one of the most beautiful outdoor spaces in the county of Los Angeles and it's access to
all residents needs to be protected.
Please, I beg of you, protect meaningful access to this beautiful outdoor public space. For our children, and future
generations, we need this meaningful access to be protected.
Thank you,
Brian Thompson
1 J.
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 12:56 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Letter in regards to Agenda Item #2 of the RPV City Council Meeting of December
15, 2020
Attachments: Del Cerro, Dec 15 RPV City Council Meeting.docx
From: Lynda Heran <lyndaheran@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 12:50 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Letter in regards to Agenda Item #2 of the RPV City Council Meeting of December 15, 2020
Please see attached letter regarding discussion of the parking and trailhead issues for the Del Cerro neighborhood
Respectfully,
Lynda Heran
16 Oceanaire Drive, RPV
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
1 d.
December 14, 2020
Re: Agenda Item #2-Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Meeting of December 15, 2020
We have owned a home in the Del Cerro neighborhood since 1990. At 5:30am each morning, we walk
north along Crenshaw Blvd. Although the gates to the Preserve do not open until 7am, there are already
at least 5-10 cars parked on Crenshaw south of Crest Rd. Some with their lights on, some playing loud
music, some talking loudly, showing little if any respect for the neighborhood. Additionally, we often
walk the same route in daylight hours and witness daily, speeding, double-parking and illegal and
dangerous U-turns as people try to get the nearest parking spots. We also witness increased trash and
dog waste left on the sidewalk and in the road. Total disrespect for our community.
We were substantial donors for the acquisition of the preserve property, relying on statements by both
the Land Conservancy and City Council members the main entrance would be off PV Drive South and
that Del Cerro would not be impacted. Sadly, this has not been the case. Burma Rd appears to be the
main access to the Preserve as evidenced by the excessive traffic on Crenshaw.
We would like to see expanded efforts to establish main trailheads away from Del Cerro and at sites
such as PV Drive South and City Hall away from residential areas.
The recently imposed no parking zone at the south end of Crenshaw has helped a bad situation. We
strongly oppose any measure to reverse this or to expand parking in that vicinity. Specifically:
We oppose any portion of Del Cerro Park being used as a parking lot for the Preserve. This will
increase traffic at the lower end of Crenshaw and make it even more dangerous. Del Cerro Park
was donated by the Federal Government for use by the neighborhood in perpetuity as green
space-not a parking lot! We have taken our children and grandchildren to play at the park
over the years. A parking lot would be incompatible with the area and unsafe for children.
We also oppose additional parking lots inside the Preserve. That was never the original intent.
The Preserve is open space and should remain so.
With the current situation (traffic, etc.) we believe that the Burma Rd and Rattlesnake Trail
gates should remain locked until other parking and access issues-away from Del Cerro-can be
resolved. The amount of traffic on Crenshaw has become totally unacceptable and incompatible
with the ambience and quiet enjoyment of our neighborhood.
Help us regain our quiet community again. Restore no preserve parking along Crenshaw (south of Crest
Road, in its entirety). No additional parking lot at Del Cerro Park it is our neighborhood park). No
parking lots inside the preserve, especially utilizing access from Burma Rd. Please help us to get our
quiet community back.
Lynda and Paul Heran
Del Cerro homeowners, 16 Oceanaire Drive
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Katie Lozano
Monday, December 14, 2020 11:48 AM
AI and Kathy Edgerton
CC; CityCierk
Subject: Fw: December 15, 2020, City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2, PreseNe Parking and
Traffic Mitigation Actions under Consideration
Attachments: 12-13 -2020 Ltr to City Council with Attachment.pdf
Hello Ms. Edgerton,
Thank you for your continued coordination and this email. This email will be included with the December 15 City Counci l
agenda item on Preserve parking and access as late correspondence.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours . To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines . Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed . For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website .
From: Del Cerro HOA <DeiCerro_HOA@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 3:22 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: December 15, 2020, City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2, Preserve Parking and Traffic Mitigation Actions
under Consideration
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
Please find the attached letter from the Del Cerro HOA for agenda item #2 for the December 15th City Council
meeting.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Sincerely,
Kathy Edgerton
1 J.
President
Del Cerro HOA
2
12/13/2020
To: RPV City Council
Subject: 12/15/2020 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2, Preserve Parking and Traffic
Mitigation Actions under Consideration
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
Thank you for your continued willingness to address the traffic and parking conditions that
persist near the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail entrances to the nature preserve. Del Cerro
HOA respectfully submits the following comments regarding the Council actions currently being
considered.
Installation of Entry Gates at the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail Entrances
Del Cerro residents sincerely thank the City Council and City Staff for completing the installation
of the gate at the Burma Rd. trailhead. The residents whose properties abut Burma Rd. have
noted a significant decrease in the number of people who enter the preserve during the hours
it is closed. They feel that the gate has improved the safety of their families and reduced night-
time noise.
We especially thank the Rec and Parks and Public Works personnel who have worked on this
effort-Katie Lozano, Cory Linder, Dan Trautner, Ramzi Awwad and Ron Dragoo. We recognize
that there have been many obstacles along the way that have delayed completion, but we
appreciate that Staff has persevered to bring the project to completion.
We do continue to notice that hikers are still arriving shortly after 5 am, well before the
preserve opening time, and the parking spaces along Crenshaw are filling up by 6:45 both on
weekends and weekdays. Most of those early-morning hikers now enter the preserve through
Rattlesnake Trail.
To meaningfully reduce the traffic and associated early morning noise for residents along
Crenshaw Blvd., we ask that the installation of the Rattlesnake Trail gate be completed as soon
as possible.
We support the plan to implement the gate opening and closing time that Council approved on
October 20th-i.e., opening the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake gates at 7am and locking them at
defined times based on sunset times throughout the year. We prefer defining the gate closing
time on a quarterly basis (rather than monthly) as long as the parking on Crenshaw Blvd. is
restricted to the same daily time intervals, with parking allowed an additional hour following
the designated gate closing time for people to return to their vehicles after sunset and leave
the area.
1
12/13/2020
While monthly designated closing times would be acceptable, we respectfully suggest that
quarterly closing times based on the latest sunset during each quarter would be a less
complicated approach and simplify the necessary sign age. We have not heard a compelling
reason for defining closing times by month. And we do worry that including monthly closing
times on signs along Crenshaw would require the signs to be significantly larger than necessary.
Our residents consistently prefer to utilize the smallest and least intrusive signage that can be
effectively enforced to minimize view and aesthetic impacts. We ask that you consider the
potential impacts of larger signs in your decision-making.
We appreciate that staff is hiring personnel to enforce both the parking reservation system
during its hours of operation and the night-time parking prohibition. We are optimistic that the
gate hours in combination with the parking hours will provide the necessary motivation for the
earliest hikers (i.e., those arriving before 7 am) to find other entrances into the preserve and to
deter late-night entrances into the preserve -hopefully through entrances that do not
negatively impact other RPV residents. However, until the Rattlesnake Trail gate is installed,
enforcement needs to be in place 7 days a week before 7am and for a period beginning one
hour after the gate closing time. The continued need for enforcement during these early and
late hours can be assessed once this gate is installed and operational.
Holistic Preserve Parking Analysis
Del Cerro residents have supported the preserve for many years. We appreciate the wonderful
natural resource that our residents enjoy living near and sincerely welcome all who want to
experience this treasure. The preserve is a resource for the entire Peninsula (and beyond) and
responsibility for access should be equitably shared by all RPV residents in a manner that does
not unfairly burden a small number of residential areas. At the same time, we expect the City to
assure that visitors respect the rules of the preserve, the parking accommodations, and the
rights of nearby residents to the peaceful enjoyment of their homes. Where there is a risk of
negative impacts, the City should take proactive measures (such as installing appropriate
sign age) to remind visitors of their responsibilities and then rigorously enforce compliance.
We encourage the City to create and promote multiple major trailheads (other than Burma Rd.
and Rattlesnake Trail) away from residential areas with parking space and appropriate
amenities. Trailheads should be established where they are not close to residential areas to
avoid negatively impacting the quality of life of residents. A major trailhead off PV Drive South
should be established. Gateway Park off PV Drive South was originally considered the
appropriate place for the primary entrance into the preserve. Over 60% of Del Cerro residents
contributed to the fundraising campaign to acquire the Portuguese Bend Reserve in 2005, with
the understanding from statements by the PVP Land Conservancy leadership and RPV City
Council members that the main entrance would be off PV Drive South. Over 70% of all current
2
12/13/2020
Del Cerro residents have lived in their homes since before the acquisition of that Reserve,
including many of those contributors.
We also agree that the trailhead at City Hall should be beautified to encourage visits to that
area.
We support the City Staff and Land Conservancy jointly providing an analysis of preserve
capacity levels, including providing guidance of what volume of parking spaces (at appropriate
locations throughout the preserve) should be considered reasonable and consistent with the
preserve's management plan. The information obtained from various open space areas in
Southern California and provided in the staff report should provide insight into the number of
parking spaces that comparable open space areas deem reasonable.
Pilot Shuttle Program
We also support establishing a pilot shuttle program to transport preserve visitors from City
Hall to spots along PV Drive South. Including an ambassador to provide educational information
about the preserve during the ride would enhance visitors' experiences. However, the shuttle
should not be used to transport people to the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trailheads, as doing
so would increase the overuse of those trails and intensify the negative impacts that the
residents at the southern end of Crenshaw already experience.
Converting Del Cerro Park to a Parking Lot for the Preserve
Del Cerro residents strongly oppose converting all or a portion of Del Cerro Park into a parking
lot for preserve visitors. Adding a parking lot near the Burma Rd. trailhead is inconsistent with
the goal of reducing traffic congestion at the end of Crenshaw. It would intensify traffic
congestion in the area that is already experiencing the most severe impacts of traffic problems
and noise.
Del Cerro Park was donated by the Federal Government to the City for use as a neighborhood
park in perpetuity, not as a parking lot. The City has invested significant funds to create and
maintain a beautiful green space for outdoor recreation. The park and preserve serve different
purposes. The park's intended uses are centered around family and neighborhood recreation
activities, many of which are not compatible with preserve restrictions: children playing games
for exercise and socializing, family picnics, kite flying, ball/Frisbee throwing, neighborly chats,
dog socialization, football and soccer team practices, Land Conservancy events, and even an
occasional wedding. We would note that Del Cerro Park is also enjoyed by families from across
the Peninsula, South Bay and beyond-which we totally support.
3
12/13/2020
In addition, during these Covid times, our HOA board has taken advantage of Del Cerro Park's
open space to convene numerous meetings with City Staff as well as our own residents in a
safe, socially distanced environment to discuss various issues.
Council Members and City Staff may also recall two events held in the park that our residents
consider very special and significant: the pancake breakfasts that residents hosted in 2005 and
2009 to thank the firefighters who fought the two fires in the preserve adjacent to our homes
to protect our families and our homes. Residents from Del Cerro, Island View, PV Park Place,
Rancho Crest, Portuguese Bend and Rolling Hills, with the support of RPV and RH Staff,
organized and funded the events, serving pancakes to over 300 people at each event-
including firefighters and Fire Dept. leadership from 15 jurisdictions throughout LA County (in
2009), Lomita Sheriff's Station deputies, Neighborhood Watch leadership, RPV, Rolling Hills, and
LA County elected officials, and Congressional and state legislators. These events were
important opportunities to show our appreciation for our first responders and they also formed
the foundation for continued cooperation among our HOAs in addressing common concerns up
to the present. Where else in this area could we find adequate space to hold such special
events?
The intended recreational uses for the park are equally as important as the nature preserve's
purposes. By using the park for parking space, the City would send a signal to residents that
creating more parking for access to the preserve is a higher priority than the
family/neighborhood recreation that the park supports and encourages-a philosophy that we
respectfully do not agree with.
To state the obvious, replacing the beautifully maintained green lawn with a dirt parking lot
would be a blight on the area, significantly diminish the ambience of the neighborhood and
contradict the City's goal of reducing traffic congestion at the southern end of Crenshaw-to
say nothing of conflicting with the City's General Plan goal of maintaining a semi-rural
environment.
Parking Lot Within the Preserve
Del Cerro residents strongly oppose any parking lot within the preserve that would require
access via Burma Rd. Providing access to additional parking via Burma Rd. would increase
vehicle traffic in the area and would be inconsistent with the City's goal of reducing traffic
congestion at the southern end of Crenshaw. It also would be unsafe to add vehicles to the trail
with the highest pedestrian traffic in the preserve.
Furthermore, vehicles driving along Burma Rd. would likely increase the danger of wildfires in
the preserve unless efforts were taken to clear large swaths of vegetation at the trailhead and
along trail/roadway.
4
. _______ , ______ ,,
12/13/2020
In addition, residents along Amber Sky already contend with the large amount of dirt and dust
kicked into the air by the large number of hikers and bikers along Burma Rd. and brought into
their homes by the ocean breezes. Adding vehicles to the mix would only worsen the dust
problem and introduce constant vehicle noise and noxious exhaust fumes.
Finally, the agencies that provided funding for the acquisition of the preserve unanimously
agree that doing so would not be compatible with the City's approved NCCP/HCP. The preserve
habitat configuration was not designed to accommodate a parking area.
Traffic and Parking Analysis
Del Cerro residents enthusiastically support hiring a traffic consultant to perform a broad-based
review of traffic and parking issues and to provide recommendations that can mitigate them.
Prior to the August 18th City council meeting, we provided information on the unsafe traffic
conditions at the southern end of Crenshaw caused by unsafe driver behavior in combination
with the large number of pedestrians walking in the street toward the local trailheads. That
information is attached to this email. The unsafe conditions have resulted in serious injury and
hospitalization of the elderly parent of one of our residents-and almost daily near misses
reported by residents.
We recommend that the traffic and parking issues and potential solutions for Crenshaw (both
north and south of Crest Rd.) be addressed as early in the consultant's analysis as possible.
Temporary Parking Prohibition along Crenshaw Blvd. South of Crest Rd.
Del Cerro residents appreciate the temporary parking prohibition that Council established along
Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd. It has significantly reduced, but not completely eliminated,
traffic issues caused by unsafe driver behavior in combination with large numbers of
pedestrians walking in the street toward the local trail heads. While driver and pedestrian safety
has improved at the southern end of Crenshaw where the street narrows, the unsafe traffic
conditions continue along the rest of Crenshaw south of Crest Rd. In fact, the red-curbing of the
southernmost section has, in effect, intensified the traffic issues residents encounter (primarily
cars waiting for parking spaces and U-turning) along Crenshaw between Rattlesnake Trail and
the Island View entrance-primarily because very few drivers exiting the area are willing to
drive the additional 390 feet of red-curbed area to make a U-turn at the end of Crenshaw.
We request that the temporary parking prohibition be continued until the parking reservation
system is implemented on Crenshaw and the analysis oftraffic and parking issues on Crenshaw
and solutions are approved.
5
12/13/2020
An additional impact of the current parking restriction is that the earliest visitors to the
preserve now park closest to the Del Cerro and Island View properties that abut Crenshaw
between Rattlesnake Trail and the Island View, shifting the earliest disturbances to those
residents. We hope that expeditious installation of the Rattlesnake Trail gate and
implementation of the 7am opening of both the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail gates (and the
necessary enforcement) will reduce this impact.
Parking Reservation System
We are pleased with the progress City Staff is making toward obtaining a parking reservation
system for Crenshaw south of Crest Rd. and look forward to working with Staff to establish the
parameters that will govern its implementation. We see this system as critical in significantly
reducing both visitor traffic volume and vehicle noise along Crenshaw.
However, we ask that the City not install several pay stations to accommodate visitors who
can't pay directly through their phone, as such pay stations would detract from the semi-rural
look of the area and add a more commercial feel to the area. Paying by a telephone call
(another option mentioned in the staff report) should be a sufficient means to assure that
everyone can obtain reservations. A previous staff report indicated that a key aspect of the
system could be to require reservations to be made before the day of the reservation to
discourage visitors from coming to the parking areas without a reservation, then searching for a
parking space and trying to make a reservation -as a means to minimize traffic congestion. We
support that approach, and it would also negate the need for pay stations in the parking area.
Web and Social Media Campaign
We support and appreciate Staff's continued efforts to utilize a web and social media campaign
to direct visitors to other less-frequented areas of the preserve.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
The Del Cerro HOA Board
Kathy & AI Edgerton
Gregory MacDonald
Miriam & Pete Varend
Dion Hatch
Bharathi Singh
Mark Kernen
Amy & Jeff Wang
6
12/13/2020
Traffic/Parking Safety Issues at End of Crenshaw Blvd. (South of Crest Rd.)
Below is a description of the unsafe traffic and parking conditions that Del Cerro residents
experience on a daily basis, derived from a letter from the Del Cerro HOA to the RPV City
Council on August 16, 2020.
We have included quantitative data that indicate the magnitude of the problems the surrounding
neighbors encounter. Much of the information was derived by one of our residents using video
footage from his security camera that faces Crenshaw Blvd. The analysis covers approximately
2 months during the summer of 2020. We would be glad to discuss how the information was
developed if you have any questions.
• Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd. is a 2-lane dead-end street that services 256 homes
(in Del Cerro, Island View, PV Park Place and Rancho Crest HOAs).
• Approximately, 8,000 vehicles travel Crenshaw from Crest Rd. to the end at Seacrest
weekly. Since all of the surrounding streets are cui-de-sacs with no outlet, those vehicles
must then travel out of the area, doubling the number of vehicle trips along that corridor
to 16,000.
• Up to 2,000 vehicles per day arrive in the area on weekends. Up to 1 ,200 vehicles arrive
per day on weekdays.
• From 6 am to 8 pm, the 41 parking spots on Crenshaw between the Island View
entrance and Park Place are filled 92% of the time on weekdays and 98% on weekends.
All of the 41 spots are typically filled by 6:00am on weekends and by 6:30am on
weekdays.
• Because of the high parking spot fill rate, visitors frequently stop their vehicles in either
the southbound or northbound traffic lane while waiting for a parking spot to become
available (even when there is no one in sight returning to a nearby vehicle), forcing
residents and their guests to move into the opposing lane of traffic to pass through the
area. This is particularly true where Crenshaw narrows toward the end and visibility of
vehicles exiting Park Place is blocked by the parked cars.
• Vehicles also park in the red-striped areas near fire hydrants while waiting for parking
spots to become available.
• Visitors also stop and wait for parking spots to become available in the parking area next
to St. John Fisher Church. Since there is a median separating the two lanes of traffic
there, residents are unable to pass around the waiting vehicles and have no option but
to wait until the car is moved.
• Visitors waiting for a parking spot often speed forward or even drive rapidly in reverse to
obtain a vacated spot.
1
12/13/2020
• Visitors waiting in the northbound lane often cross the opposing traffic to make a U-turn
to obtain a parking spot on the southbound side. In addition, visitors who are leaving
after visiting the preserve will cross the southbound lane and make U-turns directly out
of their parking places to leave the area in the northbound direction.
• Visitors also regularly make U-turns at the end of Crenshaw and at multiple intersections
within the Del Cerro neighborhood.
• At the same time, there is heavy pedestrian traffic from the 171 total parking places
spilling into the street. (The 171 parking places include those along Crenshaw south of
Crest Rd., Park Place, Crest Rd. east of Crenshaw, and the east side of Crenshaw north
of Crest Rd.)
Dangerous Traffic Results
As a result of the visitors' actions, the traffic conditions are very dangerous. Residents' entrance
into and exits from the neighborhood are impeded by vehicles stopped in traffic lanes and they
must dodge unpredictable U-turns along the way -while trying to maintain a safe distance from
pedestrians. This is all occurring along a street that has a 40 mph speed limit.
Indeed, while driving through the parking area at the end of Crenshaw, one of our neighbors
was broadsided by a vehicle making a U-turn while exiting from a parking spot, resulting in
serious injury and hospitalization of a passenger (an elderly parent).
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 12:52 PM
CityCierk
FW: Gate Installed at Burma Rd. Trailhead
From: AI and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com>
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 3:36PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Gate Installed at Burma Rd. Trailhead
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Del Cerro residents sincerely thank the City Council and City Staff for completing the installation of the gate at
the Burma Rd. trailhead. The residents whose properties abut Burma Rd. have noted a significant decrease in
the number of people who enter the preserve during the hours it is closed. They have indicated that the gate
has improved the safety of their families.
We especially thank the Rec and Parks and Public Works personnel who have worked on this effort. We
recognize that there have been many obstacles along the way that have delayed completion, but we
appreciate that staff has persevered to bring the project to completion.
We do continue to notice that hikers are still arriving shortly after 5 am and the parking spaces along
Crenshaw are filling up by 6:45. Most of those early-morning hikers now enter the preserve through
Rattlesnake Trail. To further reduce the traffic and associated early morning noise for residents along
Crenshaw Blvd., it will be important to complete the installation ofthe gate at that trailhead and to finalize the
parking restrictions and effective enforcement as soon as possible. Those actions should provide the necessary
motivation for the earliest hikers (those arriving before 7 am) to find other entrances into the preserve-
hopefully through entrance that do not negatively impact other RPV residents.
Again, thank you for your support in mitigating the impacts our residents are experiencing. We appreciate
your help.
Kathy Edgerton
Del Cerro HOA
1 :J.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 12:49 PM
CityCierk
FW: Preserve parking and traffic issues surrounding the Burma Rd entrance to the
Preserve
From: Barry Rodgveller <rodgfamily@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 11:52 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Preserve parking and traffic issues surrounding the Burma Rd entrance to the Preserve
Dear City Council members,
As a long time resident of Burrell Lane we live a mere 100 feet from the
Burma Road Trailhead. My family and I are significantly impacted by the
uptick in the usage at the Preserve through the Burma Road entrance.
We appreciate the recent installation of the new gate. It seems to have
quieted the pedestrian traffic on the trail at night and in the early
morning hours. Although it has not changed the vast amount of visitors
who enter the Preserve on a daily basis. I know the staff and the City
Council are considering multiple options to help our neighborhood and
diminish the impact of the 240,000 people who access the Preserve
through the Burma Road entrance. I would hope that you consider an
holistic approach and seriously look at all your options to lower the
impact on our neighborhood. This, I hope, should include a program to
redirect visitors to other entrances, create an online parking reservation
system for parking on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Road. The cost of
parking should be kept low perhaps in the $1-2/hour range. The charge
for violations should be significant to strongly discourage abusing the
system. Enforcement is key to making this work and should be done so 7
days a week during park hours. Weekdays are often as busy as
weekends.There should be no parking allowed at night. I do not feel you
should consider any additional parking in our neighborhood ,as it would
1 rJ.
just encourage more usage through the Burma Gate entrance. A
traffic consultant should be hired to evaluate the safety of traffic
conditions in and around Crenshaw Blvd. both north and south of Crest
Road. Thank you again for your consideration and understanding, Barry
and Hilda Rodgveller
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Mr. Bell,
Katie Lozano
Monday, December 14, 2020 12:17 PM
dwbrpv@gmail.com
CC; CityCierk
Re: City Council Meeting December 15 Regular Business Item 2
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence with the December 15th City Council agenda item
on Preserve parking and access.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are
required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation
and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the
appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time.
Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 9:29AM
To: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Home Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Subject: City Council Meeting December 15 Regular Business Item 2
To all concerned,
It is time to reflect on the reason for this problem. Ara may recall my time on the PUMP Committee and expressing my
concern that in the very early days of Preserve Development for the public, I stated on several occasions that the
increased visitation more than 10 years ago was cause for the areas to be "Loved to Death". In my worst nightmares at
the time, I could not conceive the mass of humanity that is now entering our city to continually degrade our natural
resources and quality of life of our citizens.
The popularity of the city has been influenced by RPV administration (P&R in particular), the press, social media,
numerous organized groups, Covid restrictions, and our own citizenry. When will City Council fully embrace the
realization that like countless cities, states, national parks, museums, and events high on the popularity scale that
attendance is controlled by requiring reservations? Or has prior decisions for grant acceptance voided any ability to
control crowds?
1 /J.
City Council needs to immediately verify that a reservation system is permissible for the Preserve? And if it is, to have
this mad search for discovery of more magic parking and more expenditures for moving people replaced by initiating a
reservation system.
I do not support any effort to allow more people to gain admission to any entrance of the Preserve. And for any
entrance that becomes a neighborhood problem, add a reservation system (gate).
Staff is simply trying to put their finger in the dike. If more accommodation is provided, it will generate larger crowds.
Staff is not addressing ways to create a throttle on visitation. If a National Park like Yosemite can establish reservations
for admittance at a specific time and limited number, surely RPV can apply the same logic to Del Cerro.
Respectfully
Donald Bell
Ladera Linda Resident
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Ms. Mohan,
Katie Lozano
Monday, December 14, 2020 12 :14 PM
Adrienne Mohan
CC; CityCierk
Re: Parking Mitigation Status comment letter from PVPLC
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence with the December 15th City Council
agenda item on Preserve parking and access .
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc .org>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 12:08 PM
To:CC
Cc: Katie Lozano; Cory Linder; Carolynn Petru; Randy Harwood; Cris Sarabia
Subject: Parking Mitigation Status comment letter from PVPLC
Good afternoon, City Council,
The Land Conservancy submits the attached comment letter in response to the Preserve Parking Mitigation
Status Report for your consideration.
Regards,
Adrienne
Adrienne Mohan
Executive D irector
Pa los Verdes Peninsu la Land Conservancy
1 J .
916 Silver Spur Road #207
Ro lli ng H ill s Estates, CA 90274
www.pvplc.org
(310) 541-7613 x203
(31 0) 930-4332 (cell)
Preserving land and restoring habitat for the education and enjoyment of all.
Join our mailing list
Join us on
2
From: Katie Lozano
Sent:
To:
Monday, December 14, 2020 12:10 PM
dianebmills@gmail.com
Cc: CC; CityCierk
Subject: Re: Item #2 on Agenda for 12/15/20 meeting
Hello Ms. Mills,
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence with the December 15th City Council agenda item
on Preserve parking and access.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are
required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation
and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the
appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time.
Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 8:42 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Item #2 on Agenda for 12/15/20 meeting
Dear City Council,
Mickey Radich has sent you a letter which is very complete in relaying my thoughts on the parking situation at Del Cerro
and the Preserve. I agree with his conclusions and suggestions. I hope this will aid you in your decisions in the future.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Diane Mills
President
Ladera Linda Homeowners Association
310-714-1167
dianebmills@gmail.com
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Mr. and Ms. Van Biene,
Katie Lozano
Monday, December 14, 2020 12:09 PM
wouter@vanbiene .net
CC; CityCierk
Re: Nature Preserve
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence with the December 15th City Council
agenda item on Preserve parking and access.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website .
From: Wouter van Biene <wouter@vanbiene.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 6:20PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Del Cerro HOA <DeiCerro_HOA@hotmail.com>
Subject: Nature Preserve
Dear City Council,
As long term residents of Del Cerro, we are writing this email in support of the Del Cerro HOA in their
communications with you relative to the management of visitors to the Nature Preserve .
1) We strongly support the need for additional major trail heads away from residential areas with significant parking
space and appropriate amenities (including locations off PV Drive South and at City Hall) to reduce the volume of cars
and visitors concentrated at the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail entrances support a pilot program for a shuttle that
takes visitors from City Hall to spots off PV Drive South but not to the Burma Rd . and Rattlesnake trail heads
2) We strongly oppose any additional parking area within the preserve that would require vehicles to access it by
driving on Burma Rd. and especially strongly oppose converting part or all of Del Cerro Park into a parking lot for the
preserve . The green space Del Cerro Park offers is very much appreciated by many and is the destination of
our daily walks .
1 d .
3) Relative to parking on Crenshaw, south of Crest, the current parking restrictions have greatly reduced the
traffic chaos we experienced earlier. We still have issues with cars u-turning unexpectedly and cars waiting for
a parking space to free up, but overall the situation has improved. We also noted the RPV Park Rangers being
active in managing compliance with the cureent parking rules, which is appreciated.
Anything you can do to divert visitors away from Burma Road and Rattlesnake trailhead is surely appreciated.
Kim & Wouter van Biene
21 Oceanaire Dr.
2
From: Katie Lozano
Sent:
To:
Monday, December 14, 2020 12:01 PM
lorettadaniels7@gmail.com
Cc: CC; CityCierk
Subject: Re: Dec 15 Agenda Item Comments -Access Points to PVP Land Preserve
Hello Ms. Daniels,
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence with the December 15th City Council agenda item
on Preserve parking and access.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are
required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation
and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the
appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time.
Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
-----Original Message-----
From: Loretta Daniels <lorettadaniels7@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 5:57 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Del Cerro HOA <DeiCerro_HOA@hotmail.com>
Subject: Dec 15 Agenda Item Comments-Access Points to PVP Land Preserve
Dear RPV City Council,
Respectfully requesting relief from the noise, invasion of privacy, dangerous drivers on Crenshaw Blvd. past Crest Road
and excessive dirt and dust from work vehicles driving on Burma Road, impacting residents living adjacent to the dirt
road. My lungs, pool filter and super silty dusty house are at a breaking point.
I drive to my church, St. John Fisher daily. On Saturday and Sunday mornings people make unsafe Uturns in both
directions, either exiting a parking space or seeing an available parking space. Also, leaving the church parking lot on
Crenshaw Blvd, is dangerous as I must turn left. It is a blind spot coming out of the church driveway. Because of the extra
cars, there are major blind spots for pedestrians, bicyclists and cars. Cars are double parked, parked in the loading zone
or just stopped in the middle of Crenshaw Blvd. People walk in traffic lanes to follow social distancing protocol. Many
are not wearing masks on Crenshaw Blvd. and at the top of the heavily trafficked trail entrance.
1
I can only access one trail from RPV City Hall and Hiker Parking is not clearly marked.
Yes, a shuttle from City Hall to trailheads along PV Drive South would allow trail access from more entry points. Very
supportive of this idea to facilitate hikers.
Immediate solution to give people full and complete access from Gateway Park is urgently requested. A couple of toilets
and dirt parking lot is cost effective. When landslide remediation occurs months and years in the future, the open
parking at Gateway Park off of PV Drive South will provide trail access most of the time.
Gateway Park, was initially part of the Preserve Trail Access Plan, when I supported and donated to the PV Land
Conservancy.
The two worst options are:
1. Vehicles driving on Burma Dirt Road behind the homes on Amber Sky Drive and Burrell Lane.
2. Paving Del Cerro Park to add more parking near our homes will exacerbate the noise and invasion of privacy concerns.
I have lived in my home for 30 years. The negative impact on my neighborhood must be resolved.
I love the open land being available for families, hikers, cyclists and horses. Gateway Park would help ease the pressure
for all trying to access 1,400 acres of open land with hiking trails.
The camel is having great difficulty fitting through the eye of a needle at Burma Road Trailhead.
Respectfully,
Loretta Daniels
3 Amber Sky Drive
Sent from my iPhone
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Hello Ms. Muller,
Katie Lozano
Monday, December 14, 2020 11:02 AM
Jeanie muller
CC; CityCierk
Re: PB Landslide Mitigation
Follow up
Flagged
Thank you for your email. The Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project is being prepared in compliance with the
City's Trails Network Plan, Conceptual Trails Plan and Preserve Public Use Master Plan . At this time, the Portuguese Bend
Landslide Remediation Project is not anticipated to cause any existing authorized trails to be relocated. However, if an
authori zed trail is temporarily closed during construction of the project, the City will repair and reopen the trail as part of
the project. Moreover, both of these City projects will not result in the permanent closure of the two authori zed access
points from the Portuguese Bend Community to the Preserve .
It is the City 's practice to identify opportunities during construction projects to implement the conceptual trails identified
within the Conceptual Trails Plan (the trails identified in the Preserve Trails Plan of the Public Use Master Plan ((PUMP))
already exist). However, in the case of private development projects, the City cannot require a private property owner to
implement a trail on their private property. In these cases, the City works with the private property owner at the time the
property owner submits a development application to describe the benefits of dedicating the appropriate easements for
trail access and to determine if the property owner is willing to voluntarily dedicate land for a trail easement. Again, the
City cannot require such a trail easement dedication from a property owner.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can provide additional or more specific information.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed . For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Jeanie muller <jmullermd117@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 9:40AM
To: CC; CityCierk; Katie Lozano; sherihastings@yahoo.com
Subject: PB Landslide Mitigation
1 2.
Thank you to the individuals tasked with shaping the future of our community. We are all engaged in
unprecedented times with challenges in mental and physical health leading as priorities. The opportunity
exists now to ensure and develop and maintain access to our trails. It is undisputed the California coast is
an essential part of enriching and fortifying our psyches and physical condition. Timing is essential in
protecting and enhancing our trails. You have been given that responsibility to shape the future.
We should be asking how do we best protect and maintain the beauty and integrity of our planet and the
area trails as opposed to restricting and reducing this beautiful natural resource. Horses are healers of
mind and body; please promote their presence. Please facilitate our citizens in their journey of self care.
Thanks for the time you spent reading this.
Please review the 1984 Trails Network Recs and subsequent comments and add to your plans for the
Portugese Bend Landslide Mitigation Project. Please do not cancel the equine community. Please support
the mental and physical well being of our communities' members.
Dr Jeanie Muller
Cardiologist
Jean M Muller, MD
2
From: Katie Lozano
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Monday, December 14, 2020 11:33 AM
Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
CC; CityCierk
Subject: Fw: City Council Meeting 12/15/20 -Agenda Item #2
Hello Mr. Radich,
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence with the December 15th City Council
agenda item on Preserve parking and access.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines . Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely . If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed . For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 2:58 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting 12/15/20-Agenda Item #2
Ladera Linda's first choice to improve the parking in Del Cerro is to use the PVPUSD parking lot in Rolling
Hills (RH) for Reserve parking, with a possible shuttle system. Our second choice would be to operate a shuttle
from City Hall parking lot to Del Cerro. We may be in favor of using a shuttle bus from the City Hall parking lot
to an area near Gateway Park, with some conditions, to avoid parking cars in Gateway Park.
It is a big mistake to open Gateway Park tor Reserve parking for all of the reasons cited in this report and
more. Traffic on PVDS will be a mess, because it only has one lane in each direction.
Also to correct your staff report, the Ladera Linda HOA and our residents have never said that they did not
want Reserve parking inside Ladera Linda Park (LLP). We welcome the parking at LLP as long as it is controlled.
We experience minimum issues with the present arrangement.
1
The staff has put in a lot of effort in this report and I would like to make some comments. The chickens have
come home to roost. We took the "free money Grants" loaded with conditions and restrictions to obtain
the Reserves and now we are trying to figure a way to satisfy them and/or get around them for Del Cerro. We
obviously face a huge parking problem adjacent to our Reserves. It does not make sense to move a parking
problem from one area of the City to another. It affects our neighborhoods all over the City, some more than
others. Obviously we must work on an overall solution that takes into account parking for all of our Reserves.
Presently there are 2 areas in our City that have our greatest concern, namely, the Forrestal and Portuguese
Bend Reserves.
I suggested a very simple solution and that was to obtain permission to lease the excess parking lot area
from the PVPUSD warehouse located just off the Rolling Hills Gate on Crest Road for Reserve parking and have
the hikers walk from that lot along Crest Road and Crenshaw Blvd to the Reserve entrance. Somehow staff
picked the former Rancho Vista parking lot instead, which is much further away from Crest Road.Another
aspect of it was to maybe use the idle PVPT busses to shuttle the hikers to the Reserve gate entrances, if
the City felt the walk was too long. I don't see this on the list of solutions. I recently heard that the City of
Rolling Hills (RH) did not think that was a good idea, but they think that it is a good idea for their residents to
walk through the same area through our City property to access our Reserves. I think our City should start to
learn to negotiate. We coould start by putting fencing to block their free access through our City property
to our Reserve. We have other issues with RH as well. For many years I have heard of their unwillingness to do
anything about their resident's septic systems and surface runoff water, that penetrates and feeds into our
Portuguese Bend Landslide. This is evident today because of the slide movement even though we are
experiencing a prolonged drought. We will be spending $30 to $40 million of our money to slow down the
slide without any participation from RH. So like I said, negotiate.
In the past staff has stated that they would like to direct hikers from Del Cerro with free parking at Gateway
Park to access the Reserve. We feel that is a very bad idea. At the present time the Abalone Cove parking lot
fills up on weekends and traffic blocks one of the two eastbound lanes up to the fire station. The Gateway
Park entrance only has llane of traffic in each direction on PVDS so what happens is when the parking lot is
full? Drivers will form a line waiting for a parking place and spill out of the lot and block traffic on PVDS. This
could be very dangerous. Our HOA is 100% against opening up a parking lot at Gateway Park.
The staff report suggests multiple shuttle stops on some routes. We are not in favor of multiple shuttle
stops because now you are talking about a "Hop on, Hop off tourist bus", similar to what is used for
sightseeing in many large cities. This will constantly be shifting people all around our City and create more
traffic problems. We recommend only a non stop service to and from a given Reserve. That is the only way you
can control a shuttle timetable, ie: every half hour.
In summary:
1. For Del Cerro's parking problems, our choice is to use the PVPUSD parking lot next to the Rolling Hills
gate on Crest Road, with the possibility of a shuttle service to the Reserve entrance, if desired.
2. Our second choice for Del Cerro would be to have a dedicated shuttle bus taking hikers from our City
Hall parking lot directly to Del Cerro.
3. For Gateway Park we are against any form of parking because of the constant landslide movement.
4. We would be in favor of a dedicated shuttle bus from our City Hall parking lot directly to and from the
Gateway Park area, with some conditions.
5. We also feel that there should be a fee charge to use the shuttle busses to and from the Reserves.
2
From: Katie Lozano
Sent:
To:
Monday, December 14, 2020 11:25 AM
LaurzeeMc@msn.com
Cc: CC; CityCierk
Subject: Fw: Del Cerro I Concerns
Hello Ms. Luczac,
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence with the December 15th City Council
agenda item on Preserve parking and access.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Laura McFarland <LaurzeeMc@msn.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 3:48PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Del Cerro HOA <DeiCerro_HOA@hotmail.com>
Subject: Del Cerro I Concerns
City Council ,
We have lived in Del Cerro since 1968. My entire family grew up on Coveview Drive. We attended La
Cresta Elementary (now Rancho Del Mar) which is directly above the PVPUSD School District
offices, and overlooks Crest Road (in Rolling Hills).
We all attended Rolling Hills High School, and all my 3 brothers and myself have children, and all our
kids went through the PV School District, and now more are coming up the ranks. Three generations
and households of our large family have lived in the Del Cerro community .
We are absolutely HEART-BROKEN to see what has happened to our beautiful Del Cerro
neighborhood and the mobs of people that now crowd and congest our streets, drive erratically
(pulling U-turns in the middle of the street at the end of Crenshaw, or at the end of Crenshaw), people
1
walking in the street acting as if pedestrians own the road (some have stared me down as if they
deserve walking in the middle of the street), and pedestrians crossing the road whenever/wherever
they want. Then they pull into Del Cerro looking for parking and pull U-turns and dangerous moves
inside the Del Cerro community. For years we've been dealing with these issues now.
We OPPOSE the following measures:
Do NOT add a parking lot near the Burma Rd. NO! This will definitely intensify the traffic
congestion in that area and cause people to hang out, congregate, cause disturbance, etc. NO!
Do NOT turn Del Cerro into a parking lot! NO! This would defeat the purpose of having our
beautiful park with was donated by the Federal Government to our City for use as a park, not a
parking lot. (And it would also severely affect our homeowners that have homes built right up near the
park). The City has already invested significant funds in creating Del Cerro Park as a beautiful green
space for outdoor recreation.
The park's intended uses are centered around family and neighborhood recreation activities, many of
which are not compatible with preserve restrictions: children playing games for exercise
and socializing, family picnics, kids kicking soccer balls and flying kites, people exercising and doing
group workouts, neighborly chats, dog socialization, group outdoor meetings, etc. I can only imagine
a big parking lot filled with people partying, being loud, more traffi and safety concerns, exhaust,
traffic congestion, throwing trash in the lot, socializing and causing more disturbances. It would
seriously undermine the beauty and ambiance of our Del Cerro Park.
The park's purposes are equally important as the nature preserve. By using the park for parking
space, the City would be indicating that creating more parking for access to the preserve is a more
important priority than the family/neighborhood recreation that the park supports and encourages-a
philosophy that we respectfully do not agree with.
BUILD a PARKING LOT at RPV City Hall with shuttle to PV Drive South Parking Lot and back
to City Hall as needed. Charge $3-5 per person. There is ample room and plenty of space for a lot.
Establish major trail heads at other locations around the preserve
-We support the creation and promotion of other major trail heads as well as smaller entrances to the
preserve because:
-The preserve is a resource for the entire peninsula (and beyond) and responsibility for access should
be shared by all RPV residents.
-Trail heads should be established where they are not close to residential areas to avoid negatively
impacting the quality of life of residents.
2
-Other locations for major trailheads should be created with parking and appropriate amenities to
equitably distribute visitors throughout the 1 ,400-acre preserve and 73 miles of trails.
-A major trailhead off PV Drive South should be established.
-The trailhead at city hall should be beautified to encourage visits to that area.
-Gateway Park off PV Drive South was originally considered the appropriate place for the primary
entrance into the preserve.
We also oppose establishing additional parking within the preserve!
-This would require vehicles to drive behind Amber Sky homes, disturbing neighbors with constant
noise and excessive dust.
-The funding agencies unanimously agree that doing so would not be compatible with the City's
approved NCCP/HCP (Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan). The
preserve habitat configuration was not designed to accommodate a parking area.
And now we have another issue with the City of Rolling Hills considering building Low Income
Housing and more near the PVUSD school district, which butts up against homes on Coveview in Del
Cerro. This is going to create an entirely new disturbance for our community!
Please consider our voices, and those of us that have lived here 50 years! Our community is riddled
with burglaries, crime, noise, traffic, dangerous drivers ..... we must stop this!
Thank you for hearing our concerns!
Laura McFarland Luczak
3
From: Katie Lozano
Sent:
To:
Monday, December 14, 2020 11 :22 AM
melrpv@yahoo.com
Cc: CC; CityCierk
Subject: Fw: Del Cerro and neighborhood
Hello Ms. Levy,
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence with the December 15th City Council
agenda item on Preserve parking and access.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Myrna Levy <melrpv@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 3:23 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Del Cerro and neighborhood
To whom it may concern:
My husband and I moved to Del cerro in 1962. It is a wonderful family community . In
recent years the impact from outsiders desiring to walk the trails has impacted us each
and every day.
Those visiting the trails are rude, careless and inconsiderate of others trying to access
or leave our homes. They double park make swift u turns if they think they can get a
free parking space. It is every day now that we are inconvenienced by walkers, bikers
and little children, in general that don't care that they are in the way .
There is no appropriate parking near by. There would be safer and better areas at City
Hall and of course off PV Drive south. The city could install parking meters or use a
reservation system to control the crowds.
why should Del cerro have to be the only community to have to tolerate these unthinking,
uncaring guests not necessarily from the peninsula.
I think the city MUST do something to use different points of access so that week after
week this isn't just our area that i s impacted by these rude hikers, bikers and walkers.
1
I hope the city will finally do something to help make this a city problem not just a Del
Cerro problem.
Very truly,
Myrna E Levy
20 Crestwind Dr.
RPV, Ca. 90275
Myrna
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 9:44AM
CityCierk
FW: City Council Agenda December 15, 2020, Preserve Access and Parking
From: Frank Dunst <dunst@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 3:56 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: City Council Agenda December 15, 2020, Preserve Access and Parking
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I live in the Island View Development and am an avid hiker. I find that over the years, the amount of hikers entering the
preserve at the end of Crenshaw has increased significantly over the years. The blocking of parking spaces on Crenshaw
from Crest Road to the end has helped reduce the noise and other problems, however, it seems like it has also increased
the parking going north from Crest Road.
While hiking, I frequently go down to PV Drive South and see a large relatively flat area inside the gate that could be
used for parking and another entrance to the preserve. There is already a parking area there outside the gate that is
blocked off and only used for maintenance vehicles. These areas would be a logical solution for additional parking and
relieve some of the parking and nuisance pressure on the Del Cerro neighborhoods. I urge you to seriously consider
these options.
Sincerely,
Frank Dunst
56 Santa Barbara Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
1 d.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late carr 12/19
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 9:11 AM
CityCierk
FW: Letters to City of RPV Regarding Landslide Mitigation Project
From: Ben Zask <bzask.pbca@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 9:58 AM
To: Claudia Gutierrez <claudia.pbca@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano
<KatieL@rpvca.gov>; sherihastings@yahoo.com; corinne gerrard <corinne.pbca@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Letters to City of RPV Regarding Landslide Mitigation Project
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members:
As a hiker, equestrian and homeowner in the Portuguese Bend community, I am writing to express concern over the
impacts of the Landslide Mitigation Project as well as the parking and access projects.
Encircled as we are by the nature preserves and the public trail systems on all sides, each proposed project, while
possibly worthy, impact us all. Each project encroaches on current trails, habitat and public health by bringing more
people to less and less space. The project mitigation plans do not address the impact on the horse community and those
who wish to continue to recreate safely on the trails. In 1984, the city approved The Trail Network Plan to enhance and
maintain the trails. City staff were directed to watch for opportunity to enhance the trail network where other
projects are proposed and initiated by staff. The plan included the need for disaster evacuation, firefighting access and
other emergency preparedness concerns. The Palos Verdes Loop trail has already been disrupted. Due to erosion and
lack of maintenance, new ways of getting through were created by trail users who then encroached on private property,
which was later closed off. These factors have led to the loss of full segments of the trail network.
We ask that while you plan both the parking and landslide mitigation projects, as well as any future projects, you follow
the already adopted Trail Network Plan and look to enhance the trail network at every opportunity. This includes
engineering permanent trail routes, canyon crossings, erosion control and access to trails from the Portuguese Bend
Community. Access to Jack's Hat and Three Sisters is now at risk, dependent on property owners and conservancy to
make a deal. This too puts more people on fewer trails which affects us all, the habitat and public safety. Please include
the 1984 Trails Network plan in your plans.
The city needs to fix it's street map, by deleting Roseapple Rd. and Narcissa Dr. (end of Peppertree Dr.) it allows for
3rd Parties to manipulate maps. Search the directions to my home address 96 Narcissa Dr. (across from the entrance
to the trails) on Apple Maps and see how messed up it is.
Sincerely,
Ben Zask
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 3:16 PM Claudia Gutierrez <claudia.pbca@gmail.com> wrote:
---------Forwarded message ---------
From: Lisa Gladstone <Lisa@coastalobesity.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 9:39AM
Subject: Letter-
1
To: corinne gerrard
<corinne.pbca@gmail.com >, corinne.gerrard@gmail.com <corinne.gerrard@gmail.com >
Please sign and send attached letter or rewrite in your own words. Please forward to all your
contacts who share your concerns. All e-mails need to be received no later than 12/14.
Address your email to:
cc@rpvca.gov
cityclerk@rpvca .gov
katiel@rpvca.gov
cc: sherihastings@yahoo.com (Sheri will be speaking at the in person city meeting)
Thank you for supporting our trails!
Lisa Gladstone
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 8:49 AM
CityCierk
FW: Crenshaw/Preserve parking
From: DOTIIE HASHIZUMI <dottiehash@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 11:41 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Trails <trails@rpvca.gov>
Cc: AI and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com>
Subject: Crenshaw/Preserve parking
To: RPV City Council
Re: Crenshaw parking south of Crest.
I wish to once again express my thanks for the current Crenshaw Blvd. parking for the
Preserve. It has not solved all issues, but has helped greatly. I have lived in my Del
Cerro home for almost 48 years.
However, it has come to my attention that there is a possibility of studying additional
parking alternatives at Del Cerro Park. Somehow that defies any logic to me because it
will bring us right back to the original problem of the traffic & congestion at Seacrest &
Crenshaw Blvd, the only entrance and exit from the Del Cerro homes. Additional parking
at Del Cerro Park is not the solution.
Please look at other alternatives like having other access points to the Preserve than
Burma Road.
Thank you,
Dottie Lancaster Hashizumi
22 Coveview Drive
1 ~.
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, December 14, 2020 9:01 AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Crenshaw Preserve parking
From: DOTIIE HASHIZUMI <dottiehash@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 2:30 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Trails <trails@rpvca.gov>
Cc: AI and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Crenshaw Preserve parking
To: RPV City Council
11 The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is the "most populated city in California to have 90'Yo
or more of its population living within a 'very high fire hazard severity zone."
https:/ /www.pvnews.com/opinion/commentary-the-never-ending-threat-of-wildfires-on-
the-palos-verdes-peninsula/ article 87 dde998-7 da5-11e9-8611-2fl f69010028.html
Although this article was updated in 2019, they don't mention the last two fires in the
Portuguese Bend Preserve. 2005 more than 200 acres burned near Del Cerro Park and
Aug. 2009, 230 acres burned, damaging 6 homes.
I am bringing this up because coming home Monday, Dec. 7th from a doctor's appt., 3
men were on the sidewalk admiring the ocean/Catalina view . I believe they were
tourists. I pulled over and told them they are in a high fire area and 11 please, no
smoking ... All 3 put out their cigarettes. Suggest putting up NO SMOKING signs.
As you are still trying to come to a decision on the parking on Crenshaw south of Crest
Road, I wish you to take into consideration our high fire hazards and suggest getting
input from the Fire Dept . I recall how many firetrucks & Dept. of Correction buses
crowded Crenshaw Blvd from the Preserve north to Crest. However, no one was parked
on Crenshaw back then, but with all the hikers & bikers nowadays, how will an emergency
be handled?
I purchased our home when it was still Palos Verdes Peninsula and remember my 3
evacuations very well.
1
Regards,
Dottie Lancaster Hashizumi
22 Coveview Drive
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 8:52AM
CityCierk
FW: Comments to City Council
Comments to City Council for the protection of the Del Cerro Park and its
community.docx
From: Kim Keehong <colormania@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 4:43 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Del Cerro HOA <DeiCerro_HOA@hotmail.com>
Subject: Comments to City Council
Long time residents of Del Cerro Park community and members of Del Cerro HOA, my wife and I, Dr. and Mrs.
Keehong Kim clearly manifest our comments to City Council as below.
We strongly oppose converting all or a portion of Del Cerro Park to a parking lot for the preserve. Please check
the attached file for the various reasons why we should protect the Del Cerro park as it is.
We strongly support to establish major trail heads at other locations around the preserve and many reasons
marked in the attached same file.
We strongly oppose establishing additional parking within the preserve. Because it would be major
disturbance to the Amber Sky homes and would work againt the City's existing plans, NCCP/HCP as well.
Dr. and Mrs. Keehong Kim
56 oceanaire drive
Rancho Palos Verdes CA, 90275
310.871.8714
1
Suggested Discussion Points for Letter and Oral Comments to City Council
Email to: cc@rpvca.gov by Sunday evening, 12/13/2020, if possible.
Select and expand on any points below that reflect your perspective. Add comments regarding
your family's personal experiences wherever possible.
Converting all or a portion of Del Cerro Park to a parking lot for the preserve
Oppose because:
• Adding a parking lot near the Burma Rd. trailhead is inconsistent with the goal of
minimizing traffic congestion at the end of Crenshaw. It would intensify traffic
congestion in the area that is already experiencing the most severe impacts of traffic
problems and noise.
• Del Cerro Park was donated by the Federal Government to the City for use as a
neighborhood park in perpetuity, not as a parking lot.
• The City has invested significant funds to create a beautiful green space for outdoor
recreation.
• The park and preserve serve different purposes. The park's intended uses are centered
around family and neighborhood recreation activities, many of which are not
compatible with preserve restrictions: children playing games for exercise and
socializing, family picnics, kite flying, ball/frizbee throwing, neighborly chats, dog
socialization, soccer team practices.
• The park's purposes are equally important as the nature preserve. By using the park for
parking space, the City would be indicating that creating more parking for access to the
preserve is a more important priority than the family/neighborhood recreation that the
park supports and encourages-a philosophy that we respectfully do not agree with.
• It would significantly diminish the ambience ofthe neighborhood.
• Add personal experiences of ways your family has enjoyed the park.
Establish major trailheads at other locations around the preserve
Support the creation and promotion of other major trail heads as well as smaller entrances
to the preserve because:
• The preserve is a resource for the entire peninsula (and beyond) and responsibility for
access should be shared by all RPV residents.
• Trailheads should be established where they are not close to residential areas to avoid
negatively impacting the quality of life of residents.
2
• Other locations for major trailheads should be created with parking and appropriate
amenities to equitably distribute visitors throughout the 1,400-acre preserve and 73
miles of trails.
• A major trailhead off PV Drive South should be established.
• The trailhead at city hall should be beautified to encourage visits to that area.
• Gateway Park off PV Drive South was originally considered the appropriate place for the
primary entrance into the preserve.
• If you or your family supported the preserve acquisition financially, relying on
statements from the Land Conservancy and City Council members that the main
entrance would be off PV Drive South, consider including a comment to that effect in
your letter or oral comments.
• Establishing a pilot shuttle program that transports visitors from city hall to stops along
PV Drive South and back to city hall would be a good way to better distribute visitors
throughout the preserve.
• The shuttle should not be used to transport people to the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake
Trailheads, as that would increase rather than reduce the overuse of those trailheads.
Establishing additional parking within the preserve
Oppose because:
• It would require vehicles to drive behind Amber Sky homes, disturbing neighbors with
constant noise and excessive dust.
• The funding agencies unanimously agree that doing so would not be compatible with
the City's approved NCCP/HCP (Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat
Conservation Plan). The preserve habitat configuration was not designed to
accommodate a parking area.
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, December 14, 2020 8:51 AM
CityCierk
FW: Ladera Linda Park Plan
From: patricia stenehjem <patsyanntoo@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 6:19 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Plan
Dear City Council members,
As a resident of the Ladera Linda community, I do not approve of the plans for the park, and would prefer a much
scaled-down version. My home is directly east of the park, on Sea raven Dr.. I have observed much more traffic and
noise once the park reopened for use after the pandemic shutdown. Please stop this project and keep any
renovations/remodeling as minimal as possible.
Sincerely,
Patricia Stenehjem
1 ~.
From: Katie Lozano
Sent:
To:
Monday, December 14, 2020 6:59 AM
CityCierk
Subject: Fw: Concerns related to Projects: Mitigation, trails, parking
Late correspondence.
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Professor Ohlaker <professorohlaker@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 4:55 PM
To: Katie Lozano
Subject: Re: Concerns related to Projects: Mitigation, trails, parking
Thank you Katie, I appreciate your response.
Please add my letter to those to be discussed during the upcoming meeting.
Best,
JoNeen
JoNeen Ohlaker
Professor, Child Development I
Science & Family Consumer Studies Division
Los Angeles Community College District
OHLAKEJ@LACCD.EDU
(310) 809-2425
Adjunct Faculty Issues Committee Representative I Harbor College Chapter
Los Angeles College Faculty Guild I AFT Local1521
ProfessorOhlaker@gmail.com
CPP I College of Education and Integrative Studies I Early Childhood Education
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
National University
J Ohlaker@CPP.EDU
California Faculty Association Lecturer Representative
1
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
]Ohlaker@CPP.EDU
Sanford College of Education I Teacher Education I Early Childhood Studies
Inspired Teaching & Learning
National University
JoNeen.Ohlaker@NATUNIV.EDU
NAEYC Higher Education Accreditation I Peer Review Team
National Association for the Education of Young Children
J oNeenOhlakerPBCA@GJ\ifA IL.COM
Portuguese Bend Community AssociationBoard Member I Vice President I Board of Directors
Roadsides East & West
JoNeenOhlakerPBCA@GMAIL.CO.I\f
(310) 809 -2425
On Dec 10, 2020, at 4:45 PM, Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov > wrote:
Hello Mr. Ohlaker,
Thank you for your email. The Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project and Preserve Parking and
Access efforts are being prepared in compliance with the City's Trails Network Plan, Conceptual Trails Plan
and Preserve Public Use Master Plan. The Preserve Parking and Access effort does not propose
development internal to the Preserve or on open space land that would trigger closing existing trails or
implementing new conceptual trails, and at this time the Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project
is not anticipated to cause any existing authorized trails to be relocated . However, if an authorized trail is
temporarily closed during construction of the project, the City will repair and reopen the trail as part of
the project. Moreover, both of these City projects will not result in the permanent closure of the two
authorized access points from the Portuguese Bend Community to the Preserve.
It is the City's practice to identify opportunities during construction projects to implement the conceptual
trails identified within the Conceptual Trails Plan (the trails identified in the Preserve Trails Plan of the
Public Use Master Plan ((PUMP)) already exist). However, in the case of private development projects, the
City cannot require a private property owner to implement a trail on their private property. In these cases,
the City works with the private property owner at the time the property owner submits a development
application to describe the benefits of dedicating the appropriate easements for trail access and to
determin e if the property owner is willing to voluntarily dedicate land for a trail easement. Again, the City
cannot require such a trail easement dedication from a property owner.
Public safety is top priority for the City. The City works directly with the LA County Fire Department and
LA County Sheriff's Department on disaster evacuation, firefighting access, and emergency
preparedness . In fact, the City held a test operation of the Emergency Operations Center in November in
coordination with public safety agencies, and a focus was emergency response within the Preserve . The
network of existing trails throughout the City do offer access in response to an emergency if warranted.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can provide additional or more specific
information.
Katie Lozano
2
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of
COVID -19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing
guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you
need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one
person at a time . Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of
department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Professor Ohlaker <professorohlaker@gmail.com >
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 4:38 PM
To: CC; CityCierk; Katie Lozano
Cc: Sheri Hastings
Subject: Concerns related to Projects : Mitigation, trails, parking
3
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members:
As a hiker, equestrian and homeowner in the Portuguese Bend community, I am writing to express great
concern about the sizable impact the projects being discussed, have on our community; namely the
"Landslide Mitigation Project," the "parking" and "access" projects.
While each ofthese projects have merit, the related consequences must be considered in order to
protect the members in our community. As you know, our homes are surrounded by the nature
preserve and public trail system, and each of the projects named above encroach on our current trails
and habitat, while increasing public health risks. Additionally, the current project mitigation plans fail to
address the impact on the horse community and those who wish to continue to engage in recreational
activities safely on the trails.
In 1984, the city approved the "Trail Network Plan" to enhance and maintain the trails. City staff were
directed to watch for opportunity to enhance the trail network where other projects are proposed
and initiated by staff. This plan also included the need for disaster evacuation, firefighting access and
other emergency preparedness concerns.
It is critical that the 1984 "Trail Network Plan" is followed in your planning. It should be emphasized
that the Palos Verdes Loop trail has already been disrupted. Due to erosion and lack of maintenance,
new ways of getting through were created by trail users who then encroached on private property,
which was later closed off. These factors have led to the loss of full segments of the trail network. It
should be noted that access to Jack's Hat and Three Sisters is now at risk, dependent on property
owners and conservancy to make an agreement. This too puts more people on fewer trails which affects
us all, the habitat and public safety.
I speak for my family and my community, asking that each of the above factors be included in
discussions and accounted for in decisions made related to parking and landslide mitigation projects, as
well as any future projects. We insist that you follow the already adopted "Trail Network Plan" and
strive to enhance the trail network at every opportunity. This includes engineering permanent trail
routes, canyon crossings, erosion control and access to trails from the Portuguese Bend Community.
Sincerely,
JoNeen Ohlaker
Portuguese Bend Community Association I Vice President I Board of Directors
Roadsides East & West
JoNeenOhlakerPBCA@Gl'vL\IL.C0:\1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Mr. and Ms. Hunter,
Katie Lozano
Monday, December 14, 2020 6:52AM
Hunter Studios
CC; CityCierk
Re: Re Trails
Thank you for your email. The Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project and Preserve
Parking and Access efforts are being prepared in compliance with the City's Trails Network Plan,
Conceptual Trails Plan and Preserve Public Use Master Plan. The Preserve Parking and Access
effort does not propose development internal to the Preserve or on open space land that would
trigger closing existing trails or implementing new conceptual trails, and at this time the Portuguese
Bend Landslide Remediation Project is not anticipated to cause any existing authorized trails to be
relocated. However, if an authorized trail is temporarily closed during construction of the project, the
City will repair and reopen the trail as part of the project. Moreover, both of these City
projects will not result in the permanent closure of the two authorized access points from the
Portuguese Bend Community to the Preserve.
It is the City's practice to identify opportunities during construction projects to implement
the conceptual trails identified within the Conceptual Trails Plan (the trails identified in the Preserve
Trails Plan of the Public Use Master Plan ((PUMP)) already exist). However, in the case of private
development projects, the City cannot require a private property owner to implement a trail on their
private property. In these cases, the City works with the private property owner at the time the
property owner submits a development application to describe the benefits of dedicating the
appropriate easements for trail access and to determine if the property owner is willing to voluntarily
dedicate land for a trail easement. Again, the City cannot require such a trail easement dedication
from a property owner.
Public safety is top priority for the City. The City works directly with the LA County Fire Department
and LA County Sheriffs Department on disaster evacuation, firefighting access, and emergency
preparedness. In fact, the City held a test operation of the Emergency Operations Center in
November in coordination with public safety agencies, and a focus was emergency response
within the Preserve. The network of existing trails throughout the City do offer access in response to
an emergency if warranted.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can provide additional or more specific
information.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
1 d.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Hunter Studios <2hunter@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 11:17 AM
To: CC; CityCierk; Katie Lozano
Subject: Re Trails
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members:
As a hiker, equestrian and homeowner in the Portuguese Bend community, I am writing to express concern over the
impacts of the Landslide Mitigation Project as well as the parking and access projects.
Encircled as we are by the nature preserves and the public trail systems on all sides, each proposed project, while
possibly worthy, impact us all. Each project encroaches on current trails, habitat and public health by bringing more
people to less and less space . The project mitigation plans do not address the impact on the horse community and those
who wish to continue to recreate safely on the trails. In 1984, the city approved The Trail Network Plan to enhance and
maintain the trails. City staff were directed to watch for opportunity to enhance the trail network where other
projects are proposed and initiated by staff. The plan included the need for disaster evacuation, firefighting access and
other emergency preparedness concerns. The Palos Verdes Loop trail has already been disrupted. Due to erosion and
lack of maintenance, new ways of getting through were created by trail users who then encroached on private property,
which was later closed off. These factors have led to the loss of full segments of the trail network.
We ask that while you plan both the parking and landslide mitigation projects, as well as any future projects, you follow
the already adopted Trail Network Plan and look to enhance the trail network at every opportunity. This includes
engineering permanent trail routes, canyon crossings, erosion control and access to trails from the Portuguese Bend
Community. Access to Jack's Hat and Three Sisters is now at risk, dependent on property owners and conservancy to
make a deal. This too puts more people on fewer trails which affects us all, the habitat and public safety. Please include
the 1984 Trails Network plan in your plans.
Sincerely,
William and Marianne Hunter
1 Cinnamon Lane
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Ms. Wooldridge,
Katie Lozano
Monday, December 14, 2020 6:50AM
Lindsey Wooldridge
CC; CityCierk
Re: Portuguese Bend Trail Network
Thank you for your email. The Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project and Preserve
Parking and Access efforts are being prepared in compliance with the City's Trails Network Plan,
Conceptual Trails Plan and Preserve Public Use Master Plan. The Preserve Parking and Access
effort does not propose development internal to the Preserve or on open space land that would
trigger closing existing trails or implementing new conceptual trails, and at this time the Portuguese
Bend Landslide Remediation Project is not anticipated to cause any existing authorized trails to be
relocated. However, if an authorized trail is temporarily closed during construction of the project, the
City will repair and reopen the trail as part of the project. Moreover, both of these City
projects will not result in the permanent closure of the two authorized access points from the
Portuguese Bend Community to the Preserve.
It is the City's practice to identify opportunities during construction projects to implement
the conceptual trails identified within the Conceptual Trails Plan (the trails identified in the Preserve
Trails Plan of the Public Use Master Plan ((PUMP)) already exist). However, in the case of private
development projects, the City cannot require a private property owner to implement a trail on their
private property. In these cases, the City works with the private property owner at the time the
property owner submits a development application to describe the benefits of dedicating the
appropriate easements for trail access and to determine if the property owner is willing to voluntarily
dedicate land for a trail easement. Again, the City cannot require such a trail easement dedication
from a property owner.
Public safety is top priority for the City. The City works directly with the LA County Fire Department
and LA County Sheriff's Department on disaster evacuation, firefighting access, and emergency
preparedness. In fact, the City held a test operation of the Emergency Operations Center in
November in coordination with public safety agencies, and a focus was emergency response
within the Preserve. The network of existing trails throughout the City do offer access in response to
an emergency if warranted.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can provide additional or more specific
information.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
1
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines . Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk -ups are lim ited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed . For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Lindsey Wooldridge <lindsey.t.wooldridge@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 5:04 PM
To: CC; Katie Lozano; CityCierk; sherihastings@yahoo.com
Subject: Portuguese Bend Trail Network
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members:
As an equestrian in the Portuguese Bend community, I am writing to express concern over the impacts of the
Landslide Mitigation Project as well as the parking and access projects.
Encircled as we are by the nature preserves and the public trail systems on all sides, each proposed project,
while possibly worthy, impact us all. Each project encroaches on current trails, habitat and public health by
bringing more people to less and less space. The project mitigation plans do not addres s the impact on the
horse community and those who wish to continue to recreate safely on the trails. In 1984, the city approved
The Trail Network Plan to enhance and maintain the trails. City staff were directed to watch for opportunity to
enhance the trail network where other projects are proposed and initiated by staff. The plan included the
need for disaster evacuation, firefighting access and other emergency preparedness concerns. The Palos
Verdes Loop trail has already been disrupted. Due to erosion and lack of maintenance, new ways of getting
through were created by trail users who then encroached on private property, which was later closed off.
These factors have led to the loss of full segments of the trail network.
We ask that while you plan both the parking and landslide mitigation projects, as well as any future projects,
you follow the already adopted Trail Network Plan and look to enhance the trail network at every opportunity.
This includes engineering permanent trail routes, canyon crossings, erosion control and access to trails from
the Portuguese Bend Community. Access to Jack's Hat and Three Sisters is now at risk, dependent on property
owners and conservancy to make a deal. This too puts more people on fewer trails which affects us all, the
habitat and public safety. Many hikers and bikers are unaware of safe behavior around horses, so forcing all
trail users into the same small space is extremely dangerous not only for equestrians, but also for other trail
users. An expanded and managed trail network is crucial to safety. Please include the 1984 Trails Network
plan in your plans .
Sincerely,
Lindsey Wooldridge
Palos Verdes Resident and Portuguese Bend Trail User
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Lisa Gladstone <golisapv@gmail.com>
Sunday, December 13, 2020 5:06 PM
SUNSHINE
Katie Lozano; CityCierk; CC; pbrc1 @verizon.net; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; amcdougall1
@yahoo.com; melcolbert@aol.com; momofyago@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Trails Network Plan Update or disappear? Ongoing Public Records Request
Thank you so much for staying with it Sunshine! Their suggested phone call to you, well after the two upcoming
meetings seems like an evasion.
Katie, i too have questions for you following your answer to my letter.! think though, that your response to Sunshine
may well cover my questions, as she is better prepared to discuss specific issues and trails with you. I just didnt want
you to go into the upcoming meetings thinking that your answer satisfied all concerns.
Thank you
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 13, 2020, at 3:47 PM, SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com> wrote:
Hello Katie,
You wrote: I did pass the documents you sent me on to the consultant.
This situation of City Staff avoiding implementing the 1984, Council Adopted Trails
Network Plan (TNP) is becoming more than disconcerting. I find it to be outrageous that
the current Consultant has been working on updating the TNP for more than two years,
a previous Consultant worked on it for a year and you have just recently noticed that the
City does not have page 3 (GOALS 1 and 2). That is the only document I have sent
you. It never occurred to me that you might not have passed it on.
All of the other documents which we have discussed should be in the Consultant's
possession. However, they are more the sort of thing that the City tends to forget that
you have. That is why I submitted the Public Records Request. The convoluted
process came to the direction that if I provided you with a list, you would confirm which
ones the Consultant had been given. I gave you only a short list and you have not
responded.
There is not much of anything we can accomplish with a telephone conversation. If you
do not have the documentation of the Work Product I am looking for, then our task is to
ferret out which documents Ara (as the Contract Officer on the first Contract), provided
1
to the Consultant at the Kick-off Meeting . From that, maybe we can ferret out the
directions.
Trails@rpvca.gov was copied on the following email description of what the Contract
calls for and the evidence that the work was completed. The City Attorney has said his
piece . The Mayor has sent me to you. Scroll on down for my remaining question. The
answer to that one may make all this "detective work" moot.
Subject: Ongoing Public Records Request. TNP Update
Date : 9/24/2020 6:34:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: cityclerk@rpvca.gov
Cc : cc@rpvca .gov , imac@rpvca .gov , fac@rpvca .gov , epc@rpvca .gov , trails@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello Madam Deputy City Clerk --,
9/18/2020. Maybe this is something you can ask the City Attorney. What should be a
Public Record? I am still asking for the same thing.
Again I ask, can you do a Q & A with the City Attorney? If not, tell me who can.
CONCLUSION Staff for the most part agrees with the Subcommittee's
recommendation to revise and update the City's TNP.
Why is the clarification of the "parts not agreed upon" eight years ago not available to
the public as a part of the now more than a year old completed contract? You can only
say you do not understand what I am asking for in so many ways.
2
Since you cannot find it in the Public Record, please help "the public" find out what our
money is being spent on. It certainly is not the preservation and enhancement of the
Peninsula's trails network because Staff has not been doing that for 20 years.
I finally found a way to copy and paste the difference between the Scope of Work in the
two Contracts with Alta :
B. Kick-off Meeting -Organization and scoping meeting with City Staff to: 1) Review
project objectives and principles; 2) Review scope of services and deliverables; 3)
Discuss available data and resources; 4) Review expected challenges and constraints;
5) Establish meeting and overall project schedule .
B . Kick off Meeting Organization and seeping meeting \"lith City Staff to: 1) Review
project objectives and principles; 2) Review scope of services and deliverables; 3)
Discuss available data and resources; 4) Review expected challenges and constraints;
5) Establish meeting and overall project schedule .
The strikeout indicates that this work was completed under the first Contract. The
Update Status Report and the I MAC Trails Subcommittee Report indicate that this
discussion produced some clarifications/direction as to what documents are to be
inserted, among other things.
The Staff Recommendation regarding Council's review of the Task Force's update
suggestions indicates that Staff supported the suggestions except for some subtle
interpretations in the implementation in the update of the text.
1) Review. 2) Review. 3) Discuss. 4) Review. What I am looking for is what these
exercises produced that has been handed down to the new Contract Officer (Cory
Linder). Katie Lozano says that Staff is in possession of the draft and that a team of
Staff Members (Rec.& Parks, Public Works and Community Development) are
reviewing it. Apparently, there is no "team leader", no informed Spokesperson and no
Citizen Advisory Committee. What good is a draft if the Council and concerned public
have no opportunity comment on the validity of the interpretations/directions it is based
on.
This is primarily a word processing and computer-generated graphics exercise.
Garbage in, garbage out and no milestones at which to make course corrections. If the
3
work product from a completed Project does not make it into the Public Record ... What
have Tax Payer dollars been spent on?
Minutes and notes are not the same as substantive agreements/directions in a
Consultant's Scope of Work. Please keep digging.
SUNSHINE
6 Limetree Lane
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-377-8761
su nsh inerpv@aol. com
***
The TNP Update Contract specifically mentions inserting the CTP and the CBP into the
TNP. The Updated General Plan says that Public Works is responsible for enhancing
and maintaining the trails which are on City controlled properties. The information
which you provided to the I MAC Subcommittee on Trails includes a lot of interpretive
statements and directions which had to have come from the Contract's Kick-Off
Meeting.
I find some of these interpretations to be inadvisable. I can also see some other,
potential, interpretations which I think the City Council and some citizen advisors should
have gotten to discuss before so much Consultant Time was spent on drafting the text
and graphics.
You say you have the Consultant's draft of the whole thing which apparently is now
called the Unified Trail Management Document. You are an Administrative Analyst.
You are on a "team" of other Staff Members who have been "reviewing the draft" for
several months. I have spent 36 years trying to help the Engineers, the City Planners
and Code Enforcement Officers who are supposed to be proactive about preserving and
enhancing the Peninsula's Trails Network. Administrative Analysts don't seem to know
much about how Trailhead amenities (including parking) are an essential part of the trail
network which connects the Peninsula's points of interest for non-motorized means of
transportation. The trails themselves need to be designed and maintained so that they
are both user and habitat friendly. That includes mitigating potential hazards. Analyze
that.
4
Here is my question ... Why are you making it so difficult for everyone to be able to
understand and agree on what they are supposed to be doing on an essentially daily
basis? To be more specific ... Who, what, why has the RPV Trails Network
Plan been made inaccessible to the public and the Plan's users (rank
and file Staff)?
Ok, maybe you can answer that one in a phone conversation. However, I am not the
only one who wants to know and we all need to get the exact same answer. If Council
has the answer before their December 15 and 19 meetings, their responses to Staffs
Recommendations might make more sense.
No place is safe. Do your best to enjoy the Holiday Season. Here's to a differently
different 2021 . . .. S
Subject: Re: Landmark Naming Policy. Dec. 15 CC Agenda Item 2. PV Nature Preserve issues
Date: 12/10/2020 4:57:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Katiel@rpvca .gov
To: CC@rpvca .gov , CityCierk@rpvca .gov , sunshinerpv@aol.com
Cc: imac@rpvca .gov , EPC@rpvca .gov , Coryl@rpvca .gov , MattW@rpvca .gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello Sunshine,
I did pass the documents you sent me on to the consultant. I apologize if I did not
confirm that earlier. We appreciated them very much. I would very much like to
continue this conversation with you as we update the Trails Network Plan. If amenable
to you, I would like to schedule a call with you the week of December 21st, or early
January.
Thank you,
5
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
6
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Herb Stark < pt17stearman@gmail.com>
Sunday, December 13, 2020 8:40 AM
CityCierk
CC; Ara Mihranian
City Council Meeting December 15th
Regular Business Item 2 Preserve Parking
The Del Cerro Solution
The solution to overcrowding is simple. We do not need shuttles, parking meters or new parking areas.
The City is installing gates at the Burma Road and Rattlesnake trailheads.
All that needs to be done is to have an online reservation system to enter at the Burma Road entrance,
keeping the Rattlesnake gate closed. This would only be for the weekends.
This would require one person to man the gate on the weekends.
The City's obligation is to provide public access to the preserve. It does not say where. There are 50 other
entrances that are open to the public. This meets the spirit of the law.
The same concept can be implemented at Abalone Cove or at any entrance that becomes a problem.
Herb Stark
31 0-541-6646
1
Subject: FW: Save our trails
From: Lisa Wolf <javelot@icloud.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 5:09 PM
To: Katie Lozano
Subject: Re: Save our trails
Thank you Katie, I appreciate your response and the work you do. I understand the private property issue. Just thinking
if they are up there moving dirt around it might be a good idea to improve the existing trails. Sincerely, Lisa Wolf
Sent from my iPhone
>On Dec 10, 2020, at 3:23PM, Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov> wrote:
> Hello Ms. Wolf,
>
>Thank you for your email. The Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project and Preserve Parking and Access
efforts are being prepared in compliance with the City's Trails Network Plan, Conceptual Trails Plan and Preserve Public
Use Master Plan. The Preserve Parking and Access effort does not propose development internal to the Preserve or on
open space land that would trigger closing existing trails or implementing new conceptual trails, and at this time the
Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project is not anticipated to cause any existing authorized trails to be relocated.
However, if an authorized trail is temporarily closed during construction of the project, the City will repair and reopen
the trail as part of the project. Moreover, both of these City projects will not result in the permanent closure of the two
authorized access points from the Portuguese Bend Community to the Preserve.
>
> It is the City's practice to identify opportunities during construction projects to implement the conceptual trails
identified within the Conceptual Trails Plan (the trails identified in the Preserve Trails Plan of the Public Use Master Plan
((PUMP)) already exist). However, in the case of private development projects, the City cannot require a private
property owner to implement a trail on their private property. In these cases, the City works with the private property
owner at the time the property owner submits a development application to describe the benefits of dedicating the
appropriate easements for trail access and to determine if the property owner is willing to voluntarily dedicate land for a
trail easement. Again, the City cannot require such a trail easement dedication from a property owner.
>
> Public safety is top priority for the City. The City works directly with the LA County Fire Department and LA County
Sheriff's Department on disaster evacuation, firefighting access, and emergency preparedness. In fact, the City held a
test operation of the Emergency Operations Center in November in coordination with public safety agencies, and a focus
was emergency response within the Preserve. The network of existing trails throughout the City do offer access in
response to an emergency if warranted.
>
> I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can provide additional or more specific information.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Katie Lozano
>Senior Administrative Analyst
> Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
>City of Rancho Palos Verdes
> 310-544-5267
>
1
>City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are
required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation
and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the
appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time.
Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
>
> __________________________________ _
>From: Lisa Wolf <javelot@icloud.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 8:59AM
>To: CC; CC; CityCierk; Katie Lozano
> Cc: Sheri Hasting
>Subject: Save our trails
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Katie,
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sunday, December 13, 2020 3:48 PM
Katie Lozano; CityCierk
CC; golisapv@gmail.com; pbrc1 @verizon.net; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; amcdouga111
@yahoo.com; melcolbert@aol.com; momofyago@gmail.com
Trails Network Plan Update or disappear? Ongoing Public Records Request
You wrote: I did pass the documents you sent me on to the consultant.
This situation of City Staff avoiding implementing the 1984, Council Adopted Trails Network Plan
(TNP) is becoming more than disconcerting. I find it to be outrageous that the current Consultant has
been working on updating the TNP for more than two years, a previous Consultant worked on it for a
year and you have just recently noticed that the City does not have page 3 (GOALS 1 and 2). That is
the only document I have sent you. It never occurred to me that you might not have passed it on.
All of the other documents which we have discussed should be in the Consultant's possession.
However, they are more the sort of thing that the City tends to forget that you have. That is why I
submitted the Public Records Request. The convoluted process came to the direction that if I
provided you with a list, you would confirm which ones the Consultant had been given. I gave you
only a short list and you have not responded.
There is not much of anything we can accomplish with a telephone conversation. If you do not have
the documentation of the Work Product I am looking for, then our task is to ferret out which
documents Ara (as the Contract Officer on the first Contract), provided to the Consultant at the Kick-
off Meeting. From that, maybe we can ferret out the directions.
Trails@rpvca.gov was copied on the following email description of what the Contract calls for and the
evidence that the work was completed. The City Attorney has said his piece. The Mayor has sent
me to you. Scroll on down for my remaining question. The answer to that one may make all this
"detective work" moot.
Subject: Ongoing Public Records Request. TNP Update
1
Date : 9/24/2020 6:34 :14 PM Pacific Standard Time
From : sunshinerpv@aol.com
To : cityclerk@rpvca.gov
Cc : cc@rpvca.gov, imac@rpvca .gov , fac@rpvca .gov, epc@rpvca .gov, trails@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello Madam Deputy City Clerk --,
9/18/2020. Maybe this is something you can ask the City Attorney. What should be a Public Record?
I am still asking for the same thing.
Again I ask, can you do a Q & A with the City Attorney? If not, tell me who can.
CONCLUSION Staff for the most part agrees with the Subcommittee's recommendation to
revise and update the City's TNP.
Why is the clarification of the "parts not agreed upon" eight years ago not available to the public as a
part of the now more than a year old completed contract? You can only say you do not understand
what I am asking for in so many ways.
Since you cannot find it in the Public Record, please help "the public" find out what our money is
being spent on. It certainly is not the preservation and enhancement of the Peninsula's trails network
because Staff has not been doing that for 20 years.
I finally found a way to copy and paste the difference between the Scope of Work in the two Contracts
with Alta:
B. Kick-off Meeting -Organization and scoping meeting with City Staff to: 1) Review project objectives
and principles; 2) Review scope of services and deliverables; 3) Discuss available data and
resources; 4) Review expected challenges and constraints; 5) Establish meeting and overall project
schedule.
2
B. Kick off Meeting Organization and seeping meeting with City Staff to: 1) Review project objectives
and principles; 2) RevievJ scope of services and deliverables; 3) Discuss available data and
resources; 4) Review expected challenges and constraints; 5) Establish meeting and overall project
schedule .
The strikeout indicates that this work was completed under the first Contract. The Update Status
Report and the I MAC Trails Subcommittee Report indicate that this discussion produced some
clarifications/direction as to what documents are to be inserted, among other things.
The Staff Recommendation regarding Council's review of the Task Force's update suggestions
indicates that Staff supported the suggestions except for some subtle interpretations in the
implementation in the update of the text.
1) Review. 2) Review. 3) Discuss. 4) Review. What I am looking for is what these exercises
produced that has been handed down to the new Contract Officer (Cory Linder). Katie Lozano
says that Staff is in possession of the draft and that a team of Staff Members (Rec.& Parks, Public
Works and Community Development) are reviewing it. Apparently, there is no "team leader", no
informed Spokesperson and no Citizen Advisory Committee. What good is a draft if the Council and
concerned public have no opportunity comment on the validity of the interpretations/directions it is
based on.
This is primarily a word processing and computer-generated graphics exercise. Garbage in, garbage
out and no milestones at which to make course corrections. If the work product from a completed
Project does not make it into the Public Record ... What have Tax Payer dollars been spent on?
Minutes and notes are not the same as substantive agreements/directions in a Consultant's Scope of
Work. Please keep digging .
SUNSHINE
6 Limetree Lane
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-377-8761
sunshinerpv@aol.com
3
***
The TNP Update Contract specifically mentions inserting the CTP and the CBP into the TNP. The
Updated General Plan says that Public Works is responsible for enhancing and maintaining the trails
which are on City controlled properties. The information which you provided to the IMAC
Subcommittee on Trails includes a lot of interpretive statements and directions which had to have
come from the Contract's Kick -Off Meeting .
I find some of these interpretations to be inadvisable. I can also see some other, potential,
interpretations which I think the City Council and some citizen advisors should have gotten to discuss
before so much Consultant Time was spent on drafting the text and graphics .
You say you have the Consultant's draft of the whole thing which apparently is now called the Unified
Trail Management Document. You are an Administrative Analyst. You are on a "team" of other
Staff Members who have been "reviewing the draft" for several months. I have spent 36 years trying
to help the Engineers, the City Planners and Code Enforcement Officers who are supposed to be
proactive about preserving and enhancing the Peninsula's Trails Network. Administrative Analysts
don't seem to know much about how Trailhead amenities (including parking) are an essential part of
the trail network which connects the Peninsula's points of interest for non-motorized means of
transportation. The trails themselves need to be designed and maintained so that they are both user
and habitat friendly. That includes mitigating potential hazards. Analyze that.
Here is my question ... Why are you making it so difficult for everyone to be able to understand and
agree on what they are supposed to be doing on an essentially daily basis? To be more specific ...
Who, what, why has the RPV Trails Network Plan been made inaccessible to the
public and the Plan's users (rank and file Staff)?
Ok, maybe you can answer that one in a phone conversation. However, I am not the only one who
wants to know and we all need to get the exact same answer. If Council has the answer before their
December 15 and 19 meetings, their responses to Staff's Recommendations might make more
sense.
No place is safe. Do your best to enjoy the Holiday Season. Here's to a differently different 2021 .
... S
Subject: Re : Landmark Naming Policy . Dec. 15 CC Agenda Item 2 . PV Nature Preserve issues
4
Date: 12/1 0/2020 4:57:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Katiel@rpvca.gov
To: CC@rpvca.gov, CityCierk@rpvca.gov, sunshinerpv@aol.com
Cc: imac@rpvca.gov, EPC@rpvca.gov, Coryl@rpvca.gov, MattW@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello Sunshine,
I did pass the documents you sent me on to the consultant. I apologize if I did not confirm that
earlier. We appreciated them very much. I would very much like to continue this conversation with
you as we update the Trails Network Plan. If amenable to you, I would like to schedule a call with you
the week of December 21st, or early January.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
5
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Katie Lozano
Thursday, December 10, 2020 4:57PM
CC; CityCierk; SUNSHINE
imac; EPC; Cory Linder; Matt Waters
Subject: Re: Landmark Naming Policy. Dec. 15 CC Agenda Item 2. PV Nature Preserve issues
Hello Sunshine,
I did pass the documents you sent me on to the consultant. I apologize if I did not confirm that
earlier. We appreciated them very much. I would very much like to continue this conversation with you as we
update the Trails Network Plan. If amenable to you, I would like to schedule a call with you the week of
December 21st, or early January.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website .
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 4:33 PM
To: Katie Lozano; CC; CityCierk
Cc: imac; EPC; Cory Linder; Matt Waters
Subject: Landmark Naming Policy . Dec. 15 CC Agenda Item 2. PV Nature Preserve issues
Hello Katie,
This is a continuation of my Public Records Request in search of the directions/interpretations which
Ara gave to the TNP Update Consultant at their 2018? Kick-off Meeting. My objective is to find out
what is and what is not being implemented while we all wait for the public review of the draft.
One of the three of the 11 suggestions for updating the CTP which Ara talked the Council into not
adding to the TNP or the Council's list of Policies was about the process of assigning landmark
names, including trails. Ara's position was that Staff is already following the Task Force's suggested
protocol. Ara made that statement after the Public Hearing on November 7, 2012 was closed so, I
was not able to argue my position that they are not. And, you are still not.
1 2.
The trail names which the PUMP Committee selected are terrible from a trail user/wayfinding point of
view. In relation to the Landslide Mitigation Project EIR Seeping Session, I will continue to bring up
the fact that Staff has been remiss in drafting an Amendment to the CTP section of the TNP since the
City acquired the Han Property. The yet to be approved narratives for all these now Category I and
III trails need to be addressed in the EIR as coordinated future construction. Different trail names
should be proposed, too.
Another thing the PUMP Committee approved was a revised route for the PV Loop Trail"ideal
route". "Dirt Crenshaw" is to be restored south of the Burma Road. This is mostly a matter of
replacing the catch basin and storm drain in Paintbrush Canyon which failed after the 1986 Landslide
Mitigation and PV Drive South Relocation Project. Reengineering the drainage control in Paintbrush
Canyon is a part of the current PB Landslide Mitigation Project. Restoring the multi-use trail/fire road
should be, too.
Landmark names in this whole area are moving targets. Even "Gateway Park" has never been
legally identified. The PB Landslide Mitigation Feasibility Study is fraught with miscommunications
and omissions due to the lack of an overall"facility design" for the City-owned property which is in
and surrounding this particular Project Site.
Do you have the Landmark Naming Procedure which the Task Force's Subcommittee
drafted? Should I restate the list of Documents since you have not confirmed whether or not the TNP
Update Consultant has them?
In the interest of generating holistic solutions caused by the creation of the PV Preserve, what are
you doing as the Open Space and Trails Manager? Does the draft TNP Update propose the quality
of the trail network for the Landslide Mitigation Project to incorporate? Wildfire Management,
Emergency Preparedness, Public Works, Community Development, trailheads and trails are co-
dependent. I am still not hearing from anyone who sounds like he/she has an understanding of what
it takes to make a network function.
I continue to invite you to come talk about it. ... S 310-377-8761
2
From: Katie Lozano
Sent:
To:
Thursday, December 10, 2020 4:32 PM
CityCierk
Subject: Fw: PBCA Trespassing (Hikers from RPV trails)
Late correspondence.
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website .
From: Katie Lozano
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 1:00PM
To: Michael L. Fiorentino Gutierrez; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Claudia Gutierrez; Cory Linder
Subject: Re: PBCA Trespassing (Hikers from RPV trails)
Hello Mr. Fiorentino Gutierrez,
Thank you for this email. We will submit it as correspondence with the December 15th City Council Meeting
agenda item on Preserve Access and Parking.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines . Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time . Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed . For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
1
From: Michael L. Fiorentino Gutierrez <michael.g.fiorentino@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 11:29 AM
To: Ara Mihranian; Katie Lozano
Cc: Claudia Gutierrez
Subject: PBCA Trespassing (Hikers from RPV trails)
Good morning Mr. Mihranian & Ms. Lozano,
I assist the PBCA with security and administrative duties, and due to the frequent amount of trespassing from
the rear RPV trails behind PBCA (and from PV Drive South}, Corinne has instructed me to notify both of you of
the most recent occurrences.
Yesterday (Sunday, Dec 6} there were 7 trespassers (non-residents who don't have the gate code} at the gate
at 8:02am (multiple without masks-going against local and state mandates} waiting at the exit gate to be let
out. I happened to be exiting the neighborhood in my Cadillac (in the video attached} at that moment, so the
group followed me out. They apparently had hiked down from the trails behind our neighborhood with their
backpacks and equipment and were continuing to loiter at our Narcissa exit gate because none of them had
the gate code (so in addition to being non-residents, it appears none of them are even guests/friends of a
resident}.
Video of hiking trespassing group (including multiple individuals without masks}:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RjYUGj74ofW-QfxOYUDQxAp5k0tENuWQ/view?usp=sharing
They exit onto PV driveS. (northbound} and then are out of the camera's view.
Additionally, there are frequent occurrences of cyclists loitering at both entry gates waiting to follow vehicles
in (image attached of cyclists loitering on Sunday with no masks at the Narcissa gate}. I've also personally
witnessed cyclists (non-residents} at both gates recently asking our gardners for the gate code (which I have
instructed the gardners not to give out}.
I know these situations are a bit difficult to control, but there seems to be far too many trespassers entering
onto our private roads from the RPV I Del Cerro trails behind our neighborhood.
Thank you for your time.
Best regards,
Michael L. Fiorentino Gutierrez
PBCA IT & Website Administrator
2
From: thorock1 @aol.com
Sent:
To:
Thursday, December 10, 2020 4:28PM
Katie Lozano
Cc: CC; CityCierk
Subject: Re: Portuguese Bend Preserve Comments
Thank you, Katie! Best regards, Jeff and Janet Mock.
On Thursday, December 10, 2020 Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca .gov > wrote:
Hello Mr. and Ms. Mock,
Thank you for your email. City staff has been in communication with the Island View Board of Directors, and are taking
steps to correct this behavior. We appreciate your observations and suggestions as we seek and implement solutions
to this issue. Your email will be included with late correspondence to the December 15 City Council agenda item .
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours . To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors are
required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation
and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall , please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the
appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit . Walk-ups are limited to one person at a
time . Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed . For a list of department phone numbers, visit the
Staff Directory on the City website .
From: thorock1@aol.com <thorock1@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:07PM
To: Trails
Cc: janetlmock@aol.com
Subject: Portuguese Bend Preserve Comments
Honorable Mayor and RPV City Council:
1
We appreciate the additional opportunity to express my opinion regarding managing access to the trails of the
Palos Verdes Land Conservancy.
Regarding the management of parking to the Crenshaw Boulevard, it has been reported that this trailhead
(Portuguese Bend) is the most highly accessed of all entrances to the preserve area. While we certainly
appreciate the desire and right of the public to experience and enjoy PUBLICLY OWNED native land, we also
need to point-out that while visiting these endangered and recuperating habitats, the visitors must also be
respectful of the surrounding properties; many of which are privately-owned communities, and also that they (the
hikers and public-users) have responsibilities while they are enjoying this unique preserve.
Despite a reduction of parking spaces on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road, the large numbers of
persons accessing the preserve from the south end of Crenshaw Boulevard continues to have serious affects on
the area, such as traffic congestion, littering, habitat destruction, trespassing, and people ignoring COVID-19
public safety protocols. To mitigate these concerns, we would suggest the following:
• Prohibit public parking on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road.
• Set-up a staffed information booth with a round-about just inside the Portuguese Bend Trailhead gate to
inform hikers about parking, including maps to alternate preserve trailhead locations, and also that there
is VERY LIMITED toilet facilities. The staff can help to ensure that guidelines are followed such as
masking, distancing, noise restrictions, and so forth.
Regarding trespassing, and other issues of privately owned properties, the Conservancy has posted a few signs
that include reminders to stay on the trails, but there need to be more signs which clearly demark the trails.
Certain areas, particularly the staircase to the tennis courts of The IVHOA (at the bottom of the staircase that
meets the storm-drain), have not had signage such as "PRIVATE PROPERTY, Trail Is Located Behind," or
something along those lines. We personally posted a sign at the bottom of [our PRIVATELY OWNED] staircase
about 18 month's ago only to find it destroyed and flung into the shrubs.
Trail hikers, coming towards the end of the "Rattlesnake Canyon Trail," often mistake the staircase leading to the
storm drain as the trail termination, which results in hikers coming-up the staircase and thus trespassing onto
private property. Most of the times, this results in hikers' cutting-across the firebreak/storm-water mitigation
breaks, to access the trail-head and access Crenshaw Boulevard. Last Sunday morning (11/29/20), we counted 26
persons trespassing in the course of 1 hour of observation.
The result has been severe erosion to the eastern portion of the slope, and also has created very dangerous,
slippery "trail crossings," due to soil compression and loose rocks. As an experienced "hiker," we have had
difficulty in climbing and descending all 3 paths.
Recently, we walked the trail-head and stairway, and have these suggestions to reduce the potential for injury,
decrease erosion and habitat destruction, and prevent trespassing:
• Install a fence approximately 14 feet long running directly behind the conservancy sign attaching to the
IVHOA fencing around its park area to the west. Photo #1
• Install a fence approximately 54 feet long attaching to the above fence, and descending along the first 54
feet or so along Rattlesnake Canyon Trail. Photo #2
• Install a fence and gate approximately 12 feet long at the bottom of the staircase and attaching to the
existing fence above the storm-water discharge drain. Photo #3
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Jeffrey L. and Janet Mock
35 Santa Barbara Drive
RPV, CA 90275
2
From: Katie Lozano
Sent:
To:
Thursday, December 10, 2020 4:26PM
jisomoto@verizon.net
Cc: CC; CityCierk
Subject: Fw: City Council Agenda 12/15//20 Preserve Parking and Access Report
Hello Jane and James lsomoto,
Thank you for your email. It will be included as correspondence with the December 15 City Council agenda
item.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors
are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are
working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your
visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be
delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: From: jisomoto@verizon.net <jisomoto@verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 3:37 PM
To: CC <CC @rpvca.gov>
Sub ject: City Council Agenda 12/15//20 Preserve Parking and Access Report
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
The Burma Road trail is two way. It is imperative that the City open the parking areas at the other side of the preserve
and allow people to access the trail system at that point. Encouraging people to use other access points for the preserve
would be beneficial to those of us in the Del Cerro neighborhoods who have had to put up with these dangerous
conditions for the last few years .
Please paint the rest of the curbs on Crenshaw up to Crest road RED . Keeping people from darting out between cars and
crossing the street in mid-block will make it much safer to drive on Crenshaw and possibly save the City from future
liability , As it is now people park in the loading zone and double park to wait for an open parking space . We have seen
as many as four cars waiting .
We have lived in Island View for 33 years. In the last couple years the traffic and congestion associated with
Del Cerro park and the trails system has become unbearable. Cars coming up Crenshaw searching for
parking have increased dramatically. Visitors from those cars and bicyclists have no qualms about walking,
running or riding across the street with no regard for oncoming traffic. Cars parked on Crenshaw open doors
1
into the street and stand there loading or unloading everything from children and bicycles to hiking gear. It is a
miracle no one has been hit or injured.
The use of a reservation system or hiring an additional employee to check the reservations and possibly ticket those who
park without a reservation sounds like a lost cause. As it is now people drive to the end of Crenshaw, don't find an open
space and go back to Crest and make a U-turn to try again. Between the cars waiting for spaces and those that
repeatedly make a loop the air quality is now also being impacted. With the Preserve being shown all over social media
as a convenient place to hike this situation is unlikely to change without some significant actions by both the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes and the Conservancy.
Thank you for your consideration of the change to our quality of life and safety and please add more parking off Palos
Verdes Drive South at the bottom of the Burman Road trail.
Jane and James lsomoto
2
From: Katie Lozano
Sent:
To:
Thursday, December 10, 2020 4:21 PM
CityCierk
Subject: Fw: 12-15-20 City Council Agenda: Preserve Parking & Access Report
Late correspondence.
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are
required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation
and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the
appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time.
Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
From: Katie Lozano
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 2:23 PM
To: Carrie Fernandez; Trails
Cc: mfernand@cox.net; dddrpv@verizon.net
Subject: Re: 12-15-20 City Council Agenda: Preserve Parking & Access Report
Hello Ms. Fernandez,
Thank you for your email. It is invaluable to hear directly from those impacted. This email will be included as
correspondence along with the December 15th City Council agenda item on Preserve parking and access.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are
required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation
and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the
appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time.
Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
1
From: Carrie Fernandez <carrfer@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 2:13 PM
To: Trails
Cc: mfernand@cox.net; dddrpv@verizon.net
Subject: 12-15-20 City Council Agenda: Preserve Parking & Access Report
Hello Katie,
Hope all is well.
We are Island View residents & we are writing to give you the latest input regarding the parking near the Portuguese
Bend Preserve. Our neighborhood along with the other 3 neighborhoods are still experiencing a negative impact due to
the excessive amount of visitors parking on Crenshaw.
The vehicle & foot traffic continues to be unbearable. The worst of it was during the Thanksgiving weekend. It was so
bad that we couldn't turn onto Crenshaw from our entrance. They continue to double park in front of St. John Fisher &
the foot traffic was so congested that there was no way anyone could stay 6 feet apart. Many of them were not wearing
masks. We couldn't even walk our dogs on Crenshaw. This doesn't help to mitigate Covid.
The City originally stated that all 55 spaces south of Crest were going to be blocked. For some reason, the City decided to
block only one third of the 55. This decision has done absolutely nothing to relieve the foot & vehicle congestion in our
neighborhoods.
Every meeting regarding this parking problem, several of the visitors who speak have no respect for the homeowners
who pay the taxes & HOA dues. These visitors have no consideration for the residents who have to put up with
trespassing, damaging property, littering, double parking, & name calling.
We don't oppose the hikers enjoying our beautiful trails, but please listen to the residents negatively impacted by the
City's lack of action to alleviate this parking disaster.
We continue to suggest that all 55 spaces on Crenshaw south of Crest get red painted so visitors can't park there & open
the vacant land off of PV Drive South (formerly known as Gateway) for parking. This will provide parking within the
Preserve & away from neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Marc & Carrie Fernandez
Sent from my iPad
2