20210706 Late CorrespondenceTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JULY 6, 2021
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
H
1
2
3
Description of Material
Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Lozano and
Sunshine
Email from Sunshine; Email exchange between Senior Administrative
Analyst Lozano and: Sunshine; Damon Moran
Revised Attachment C4 with Redline (IMAC FY2021-22 Work Plans)
Email from Elliot Levy
Emails from: Herb Stark; Janet Yamamoto; Stasys Petravicius; Mickey
Radich; Kathy Edgerton; Don Douthwright
Teresa Takaoka
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\202112021 Coversheets\20210706 additions revisions to agenda.docx
Subject: FW : Item not on the Council Agenda July 6, 2012 because it is on several
From: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 20213:30 PM
To: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Item not on the Council Agenda July 6, 2012 because it is on several
Hello Sunshine,
Thank you for email. Public use is a permissive covered activity under the City's NCCP/HCP, meaning that it may only
take place if it does not negatively impact the primary purpose of the NCCP/HCP, which is preservation of specific
sensitive species and their habitats. That being said, the City, PVPLC and Wildlife Agencies have worked hard to create
and implement the Preserve Public Use Master Plan which defines how to balance public access with natural resource
protection and conservation, and it has successfully served its purpose since it was adopted by the City Council in
2013 . The link below has additional information on public access and the PVPLC's role in the Nature Preserve (please
see #'s 14' 19, 20, 24, 26).
https://www.rpvca .gov/DocumentCenter/View/17123/Responses-to -Public-Comments
The updated Trails Network Plan will address the California Coastal Trail and Palos Verdes Loop Trail.
I hope this information is helpful.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation and Parks Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
katiel@rpvca .gov
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: Tuesday, July 6, 202110:59 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca .gov >
1
Cc: imac <imac@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov >
Subject: Item not on the Council Agenda July 6, 2012 because it is on several
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council,
I am submitting this as an Item not on the Agenda so that when you get to the Consent Calendar, you
and the City Attorney can decide whether or not you may discuss what is missing from the Staff
Report for Item H because it may influence how you deal with either part of Staffs Recommended
actions and subsequent Items .
I have not yet been able to figure out if previous Councils directed the drafting of an NCCP in pursuit
of the claimed benefits of having "Wildlife Agencies" permits or if the objective is an ever-expanding
area of exclusively "pure habitat". I would really like to know if I should take completing the California
Coastal Trail and/or the Palos Verdes Loop Trail off of my "Bucket List".
Not completing the Trails Network Plan Update appears to be Staffs way of supporting the PVP Land
Conservancy's revised Mission Statement. This is impacting Agenda Items G, 1, 2, 3 and 4 in so far
as consideration of the General Plan's Circulation Element influences every other vaguely land use
related action the Council takes.
I will submit a request to participate in a variety of ways just in case someone indicates that you have
a question for me. I hope you all got to celebrate Independence Day each in your own special
way. I am not feeling very independent. ... S
Subject: 2021 proposed Alta Agmt amendment
Date : 7/6/2021 9:43:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: katiel@rpvca .gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Katie,
2
I sure wish that you had contacted me before you submitted this Staff Report for review by those
"above your pay grade". It leaves so many questions unanswered. Everybody else (people only
interested in the TNP) get a 27 hour notice? You asked to postpone our appointment and you have
not rescheduled. Who renegotiated this Agmt? I still have not been able to find out who on RPV's
Staff is the Decision Maker since you can't or may not, answer my questions about the decisions
which have been made.
Your BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION does not go back far enough. The update process started
in 1988 when the Council responded to the fact that Staff was not being proactive about implementing
the TNP. The first step toward a solution was the drafting of the CTP as an insertion to clarify who
was to take the lead in particular circumstances and describe the expected results using a minimum
of the most primary trails as examples. A, B, C and D trails are stand-alone, multi-jurisdictional
"arterials".
Come 2003, Public Works was still not following The Plan. The Rec.& Parks Committee had been
disbanded so nobody was processing the public's requests for amendments. The Planning
Department's proposed "updates" have all been to remove trails from the list.
The Open Space Planning and Rec. & Parks Task Force attempted to draft an update and found that
it made sense to get Council approval of their formatting and policy recommendations before they
went to the effort of redrafting all of the impacted text. 11 "discussion topics" were submitted to Staff
in 2004 and the Task Force was disbanded in 2005.
Come 2012, Staff was functioning the same as in 2003 so the Council addressed the 11 Discussion
Topics, a Consultant was retained ($7,000.00) and Ara assured us all that a draft update of the TNP
would be presented to Council before the end of the year 2013.
Seven and a half years later, the TNP is not being implemented and Staff is still claiming that it is not
user-friendly. The Staff Recommendation on tonight's Agenda does not present a solution to the
problem. I truly wish that you would let me help. . .. S
Subject: July 6th City Council Agenda Item: Trails Network Plan Update
Date: 7/5/2021 4:03:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: listserv@civicplus.com
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
3
On July 6, 2021, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will consider the following agenda item:
Consideration and possible action to approve a contract amendment with Alta Planning and
Design to update the Trails Network Plan Update.
The City Council Meeting will be held virtually at 7 p .m. Visit rpvca .gov/participate for information on
how to participate in public comment.
Click here to review the City Council agenda.
Please contact Senior Administrative Analyst Katie Lozano for additional information
at katiel@rpvca.gov or 310-544-5267.
*************************************************
This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of a "Notify Me" Listserv category you are signed
up for . Please do not press "rep ly" when respond ing to this message , it is an unmon itored ema il address . You can make
changes to your subscription by visiting http ://www.rpvca .gov/list.aspx .
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Trails Network Plan on
www.rpvca.gov . To unsubscribe, click the following link:
Unsubscribe
Subject: Re: 2021 proposed Alta Agmt amendment. Trails Network Plan Update
Date: 7/3/2021 12:24 :06 PM Pacific Standard Time
From : sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: TeriT@rpvca .gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Teri,
Thank you for the early bird copy of the Staff Report. I was hoping to talk with the person who
renegotiated the Contract before the Report was written. Too late now. Katie is not a decision-
maker. I'll send late correspondence to Council and maybe show up to speak. Consent Calendar
Items are so cast in stone it is rarely worth the effort .... S
4
Subject: RE: 2021 proposed Alta Agmt amendment. Trails Network Plan Update
Date: 6/29/2021 7:31 :40 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: TeriT@rpvca .gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Cc: KatieL@rpvca .gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello SUNSHINE,
My apologies on the delay in responding to you as I was out of the office for a few days.
I have attached the staff report and I have copied Katie on this email.
The staff report is quite comprehensive but if you want to email Katie with any questions you may
have, I am sure she would be a great resource.
Hope all is well with you and yours.
Teri
Subject: 2021 proposed Alta Agmt amendment. Trails Network Plan Update
Date: 6/28/2021 2:08:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: terit@rpvca .gov
Cc: cc@rpvca .gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello Teri,
5
Ara told me that if I had questions concerning an item on a Tentative Agenda, I should ask you. Here
goes.
July 6, 2021 City Council Consent Calendar, R&P, Consider Amd No. 2 to Alta Agmt for Trails
Network Plan. Who is negotiating this potential amendment? What I really need to know is if this
amendment is going to change any of the "interpretations" which Ara, as the Contract Officer, gave to
the Consultant during the Kick-Off Meeting process. Cory is now the Contract Officer under the 1st
Amendment and he refers everything to Katie. Katie has not been able to confirm which documents
were given to the Consultant to work from. I objected to the vagueness of the original contract's
Scope of Work so I am hoping that this amendment is proposing to introduce the City Council's more
recent RFP details.
Since this is to be a Consent Calendar Item, time is of the essence. Once the Agenda Report is
published, there is little the public can do to influence the errors of omission.
Thank you for anything you can do to open a line of communication .... S 310-377-8761
6
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Thursday, July 1, 2021 2:52 PM
Ara Mihranian
CC; CityClerk; Katie Lozano; Ramzi Awwad; jododge29@yahoo.com;
jtaylor@dhs.lacounty.gov; jordette@msn.com; golisapv@gmail.com; pbrc1@verizon.net;
jeanlongacre@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; ksnell0001@aol.com
Subject:Re: YEA! TNX and what is RPV going to do about the rest of missing "intellec. ..
Katie's version of implementation -185Jpg
CAUTION: This email orl lnated from outside of t he Cl! ef Ran clile P.al'e s Verdes.
In a message dated 2/17/2016 12 :09 :22 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, AraM@rpvca.gov writes:
I meant to say 2009.
***
Hello Mr. City Manager,
You stand corrected . I wrote back ... So, all of my questions still need answers. Who should I
contact? Five years later, I see that I need to change my question. Are you misguiding your Staff
and the City Council on purpose or out of ignorance? The following is FYI just in case it is the latter.
Who is left from five years ago? This statement is still as true now as it was then.
There is a lot more work to be done to clarify the difference between trail user maps and trail
preservation planning documents.
So is:
The current Conceptual Trails Plan along the PV Loop Trail "ideal route" is reasonably accurate the
way it is. But, nobody reads it. By that, I mean Staff. The Rec. & Parks Department does not appear
to be aware of the Sol Vista Park site. The Public Works Department obliterates the existing trail
1
every year for fire fuel abatement. The Community Development Dept. has not been supporting the
public's efforts to acquire Irrevocable Offer of Easement Dedications .
Speaking of easement offers , who is in a position to ask the new City Attorney to review the previous
"boilerplate" version? Who is in a position to authorize funding to produce Exhibits A and B?
The relativity of Sol Vista Park and Sol Vista Trail are a mystery to our current Staff. The same can
be said for most of our park sites and trails.
Trails to and through parks connect with other parks and points of interest. Well, that is what they
used to do. I am getting the distinct impression that Staff keeps repeating things they have been told
without verifying that other people are actually doing what has been stated.
You are in charge of what the City Council and the Planning Commission get to consider . Non-
motorized circulation is more than just recreation. Are you going to devote any Staff Time to draft a
Walking Path Plan? If so, what a waste. City Council simply pointed out that while we have
programs to maintain our paved roadways and our hard surface sidewalks, we are neglecting the rest
of the width of our rights of way. This is a safety issue or, call it a hazard mitigation issue.
"Arterial" trails are "narrated" in the CTP because Staff couldn't find them based on the global
concepts in the TNP. They still can't find them because they don't look them up. That would be OK if
they asked me to do it for them at the very beginning of a project. I shouldn't have to point out that
there is an opportunity to clear a roadside for pedestrians while some development, utilities or
pavement is being worked on because, by the time a ListServ Notice is sent out, a change order is
too costly .
I find it fascinating that the new Director of Public works and the IMAC have been instructed to get
their trails planning information from Katie. What does a Recreation Analyst know about
infrastructure management? Apparently, not much as in, only what she has been told.
The PB Landslide Mitigation Project is in ongoing need of the answers. The work done in 2020-2021
at Abalone Cove, per the PVPLC Annual Work Plan appears to find the difference irrelevant. 28160
PV Drive East has become a new "debacle". The Planning Commission's denial of this application, if
appealed, could expose the damage being done by your efforts to make the City's Trails Network
Plan "vanish".
2
The City Council has approved the 2021-2022 Budget which, as presented, claims to adequately fund
the "soft costs" of making sure our infrastructure "needs" are covered before our aesthetic "wants".
Updating the Trails Network Plan is a clerical exercise. Negotiating the design of the trails network as
it should support the PV Nature Preserve is a task which the PUMP Committee was not allowed to
complete.
These two, "soft cost" tasks can be done concurrently. Clearly, Staff is not working on either one.
And, Staff is not availing themselves of the directions Goals and Policies in the original TNP. They
have not changed. Details to assist Staff with the implementation have been added. You know all
this. You are the only one who has the authority to direct your Staff to make better use of
knowledgeable volunteer citizens. All of the policy decisions have been made. Interpretations cannot
be validated until they are vetted in a public discussion.
See the attached reply from Katie to a Joan Taylor in the Agenda Report for Council's "Scoping
Session" on the PB Landslide Remediation Project, December 19, 2020. The email she is
responding to said " ... save our trails". Katie describes what should be happening in a way that
implies that it is. Most of the action she explains in the reply is what she calls "above her pay grade".
Does she not know that she doesn't know what Public Works is waiting for her to tell them? Ramzi
has been told that he should not read the TNP for himself.
Now that the preponderance of the existing trails and trail improvement opportunities are on City
owned property or City controlled easements, it is the Public Works Department who has the
responsibility to maintain them, consult with the public and engineer their enhancements. According
to the existing TNP, it is your responsibility as City Manager, to make that happen. See program 5 on
page 50. It is in the Budget. Why doesn't Ramzi know about it? Katie obviously doesn't.
Only you and James Powell appear to know what documents and interpretations you provided in the
Alta Kick-Off Meeting. Proposing to kick the Public Review another year down the road is dangerous
to the integrity of our community as long as our existing facilities are being allowed to deteriorate and
our opportunities for cost effective, improved infrastructure are being missed.
Please share the missing information as an add on to the request to fund extending the Alta Contract
and propose a process to draft an amendment to the CTP which would document the trail "narratives"
as Category III and specific-course where they are now Category II and point-to-point. I continue to
be willing to do the word processing and direct the graphics input. I just need to be able to sit in on
the discussions with Public Works, the Fire Dept and PVPLC. I am quite familiar with the trail using
public's comments.
3
Alta has done a lot more than they should without a public review of samples of how your directions
are impacting the end product. For instance ... By "user-friendly", do you mean trail users or staff
decision-makers? The CTP is for Staff. The Preserve Trails Plan is for the Public.
Your reply to all this needs to be to Council come Tuesday evening. See you then .... S
Subject: Re: YEA! TNX and what is RPV going to do about the rest of missing "intellec ...
Date: 2/ 1 7 /2 0 16 1 :58:58 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: SunshineRPV@aol.com
To: AraM@rpvca.gov
BCC: momofyago@gmail.com, pfunky@dslextreme.com, cprotem73@verizon.net
So, all of my questions still need answers. Who should I contact? ... S 310-377-8761
In a message dated 2/17/2016 12:09:22 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, AraM@rpvca.gov writes:
I meant to say 2009.
Sent from my iPhone
Subject:
Date:
From:
To:
Hi Ara,
YEA! TNX and what is RPV going to do about the rest of missing "intellectual pr
2/17/2016 11:23:23 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
SunshineRPV@aol.com
aram@rpvca.gov
If the file went missing in 1996, I don't expect it to contain anything about the more recent easement
relocation and home construction. Or, has a newer file been merged with the older one?
4
The current point of interest is the property directly across the street from 2477 Sunnyside Ridge
Road. Once the trail across Greenwood Canyon is restored, there will be more use of the historic trail
the rest of the way to Miraleste on the Narbonne Right of Way.
The current Conceptual Trails Plan along the PV Loop Trail "ideal route" is reasonably accurate the
way it is. But, nobody reads it. By that, I mean Staff. The Rec. & Parks Department does not appear
to be aware of the Sol Vista Park site. The Public Works Department obliterates the existing trail
every year for fire fuel abatement. The Community Development Dept. has not been supporting the
public's efforts to acquire Irrevocable Offer of Easement Dedications.
Speaking of easement offers, who is in a position to ask the new City Attorney to review the previous
"boilerplate" version? Who is in a position to authorize funding to produce Exhibits A and B?
There is a lot more work to be done to clarify the difference between trail user maps and trail
preservation planning documents. Hang in there .... S 310-377-8761
In a message dated 2/15/2016 3:11 :40 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, AraM@rpvca.gov writes:
Sunshine,
Great news, I found the 2477 SSRR address file that we've been looking for since
1996!
In case you want to review any of the documents.
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
5
From: Katie Lozano
· Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 3:09 PM
To: Joan Taylor
Cc: CC; CityClerk
Subject: Re: Community response to city projects
Hello Ms. Taylor,
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 tl"!eir
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 i
1
F-5
approprfale easem~enfsrorlraila-ccess analodeterrriine if the property owner is willinglovofuntarTIY-
dedicate land for a trail easement. Again,Jhe 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
Subject: FW: 2021 proposed Alta Agmt amendment
From: Katie Lozano
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 202110:04 AM
To: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com >
Subject: RE: 2021 proposed Alta Agmt amendment
Hello Sunshine,
Thank you for your email. The only changes in the contract amendment are extension of the term, and additional fees
for additional levels of review and draft document updates, and additional staff-consultant meetings and
coordination. None of the key deliverables have changed. The City Council did provide staff with some additional
direction, including holding a second public workshop, and taking into consideration usage levels and trails as a means to
improving circulation.
I would very much like to still have our meeting, and City staff acknowledges the wealth of knowledge and history you
have regarding the Trails Network Plan and would very much appreciate and benefit from your help updating the
document.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative
Analyst
Recreation and Parks
Department
katiel@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5267
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
DOWNLOAD
'fltfj
► GHITON
• Google Play
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.
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 JI.
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com >
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 9:44 AM
To: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca .gov>
Subject: 2021 proposed Alta Agmt amendment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the a of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hi Katie,
I sure wish that you had contacted me before you submitted this Staff Report for review by those
"above your pay grade". It leaves so many questions unanswered. Everybody else (people only
interested in the TNP) get a 27 hour notice? You asked to postpone our appointment and you have
not rescheduled. Who renegotiated this Agmt? I still have not been able to find out who on RPV's
Staff is the Decision Maker since you can't or may not, answer my questions about the decisions
which have been made.
Your BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION does not go back far enough. The update process started
in 1988 when the Council responded to the fact that Staff was not being proactive about implementing
the TNP . The first step toward a solution was the drafting of the CTP as an insertion to clarify who
was to take the lead in particular circumstances and describe the expected results using a minimum
of the most primary trails as examples. A, B, C and D trails are stand-alone, multi-jurisdictional
"arterials".
Come 2003, Public Works was still not following The Plan. The Rec.& Parks Committee had been
disbanded so nobody was processing the public's requests for amendments. The Planning
Department's proposed "updates" have all been to remove trails from the list.
The Open Space Planning and Rec. & Parks Task Force attempted to draft an update and found that
it made sense to get Council approval of their formatting and policy recommendations before they
went to the effort of redrafting all of the impacted text. 11 "discussion topics" were submitted to Staff
in 2004 and the Task Force was disbanded in 2005.
Come 2012, Staff was functioning the same as in 2003 so the Council addressed the 11 Discussion
Topics, a Consultant was retained ($7,000.00) and Ara assured us all that a draft update of the TNP
would be presented to Council before the end of the year 2013.
2
Seven and a half years later, the TNP is not being implemented and Staff is still claiming that it is not
user-friendly. The Staff Recommendation on tonight's Agenda does not present a solution to the
problem. I truly wish that you would let me help .... S
Subject: July 6th City Council Agenda Item: Trails Network Plan Update
Date: 7/5/2021 4 :03 :58 PM Pacific Standard Time
From : listserv@civicplus.com
To : sunshinerpv@ao l.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
On July 6, 2021, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will consider the following agenda item :
Consideration and possible action to approve a contract amendment with Alta Planning and
Design to update the Trails Network Plan Update.
The City Council Meeting will be held virtually at 7 p .m . Visit rpvca.gov/participate for information on
how to participate in public comment.
Click here to review the City Council agenda.
Please contact Senior Administrative Analyst Katie Lozano for additional information
at katiel@rpvca.gov or 310-544-5267.
*************************************************
This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of a "Notify Me" Listserv category you are signed
up for . Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message , it is an unmonitored email addre ss . You can make
changes to your s ubscription by visiting http://www.rpvca .gov/l ist.aspx .
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Trails Network Plan on
www.rpvca.gov . To unsubscribe, click the following link:
Unsubscribe
Subject: Re: 2021 proposed Alta Agmt amendment. Trails Network Plan Update
Date : 7/3/2021 12 :24:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
From : sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: TeriT@rpvca .gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
3
Hi Teri,
Thank you for the early bird copy of the Staff Report. I was hoping to talk with the person who
renegotiated the Contract before the Report was written. Too late now. Katie is not a decision-
maker. I'll send late correspondence to Council and maybe show up to speak. Consent Calendar
Items are so cast in stone it is rarely worth the effort .... S
Subject: RE: 2021 proposed Alta Agmt amendment. Trails Network Plan Update
Date : 6/29/2021 7:31 :40 PM Pacific Standard Time
From : TeriT@rpvca .gov
To : sunshinerpv@aol.com
Cc: KatieL@rpvca .gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello SUNSHINE,
My apologies on the delay in responding to you as I was out of the office for a few days.
I have attached the staff report and I have copied Katie on this email.
The staff report is quite comprehensive but if you want to email Katie with any questions you may
have, I am sure she would be a great resource .
Hope all is well with you and yours.
Teri
Subject: 2021 proposed Alta Agmt amendment. Trails Network Plan Update
Date: 6/28/2021 2:08:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
4
From : sunshinerpv@aol.com
To : terit@rpvca .gov
Cc: cc@rpvca .gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello Teri,
Ara told me that if I had questions concerning an item on a Tentative Agenda, I should ask you . Here
goes.
July 6, 2021 City Council Consent Calendar, R&P, Consider Amd No. 2 to Alta Agmt for Trails
Network Plan . Who is negotiating this potential amendment? What I really need to know is if this
amendment is going to change any of the "interpretations" which Ara, as the Contract Officer, gave to
the Consultant during the Kick-Off Meeting process . Cory is now the Contract Officer under the 1st
Amendment and he refers everything to Katie. Katie has not been able to confirm which documents
were given to the Consultant to work from. I objected to the vagueness of the original contract's
Scope of Work so I am hoping that this amendment is proposing to introduce the City Council's more
recent RFP details.
Since this is to be a Consent Calendar Item, time is of the essence. Once the Agenda Report is
published, there is little the public can do to influence the errors of omission .
Thank you for anything you can do to open a line of communication .... S 310-377-8761
5
1
Subject:FW: Item not on the Council Agenda July 6, 2012 because it is on several
From: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 5:10 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Item not on the Council Agenda July 6, 2012 because it is on several
Late correspondence for Consent Item H. Thank you.
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 4:49 PM
To: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Item not on the Council Agenda July 6, 2012 because it is on several
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello Katie,
If Exhibit A was more specific I would not be asking for more specifics. I am an Engineer type not a
PR person.
If the PUMP was so successfully serving its purpose, Council would not be issuing additional
directives and asking you to come up with "holistic solutions". I hear what Council says and I read
what Staff writes. There is a gap. Everyone is pointing at you to fill it. Repeating the same non-info
is not preserving and enhancing any off-road circulation corridors.
Citizen Advisory Committee Work Plans, Ladera Linda, the Preserve Shuttle, even the City's platform
responding to housing and local land use legislation could use some "before the presentation"
disclosure of what alternatives the Decision-Maker considered.
Council has asked for and is still not getting an analysis of the "downside of saying NO" as a part of
every Staff Recommendation. I'm waiting while my world goes to Hell. What else can I do? ...S
In a message dated 7/6/2021 3:30:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, KatieL@rpvca.gov writes:
Hello Sunshine,
Thank you for email. Public use is a permissive covered activity under the City’s NCCP/HCP, meaning that it may
only take place if it does not negatively impact the primary purpose of the NCCP/HCP, which is preservation of
specific sensitive species and their habitats. That being said, the City, PVPLC and Wildlife Agencies have worked
hard to create and implement the Preserve Public Use Master Plan which defines how to balance public access
with natural resource protection and conservation, and it has successfully served its purpose since it was
adopted by the City Council in 2013. The link below has additional information on public access and the
PVPLC’s role in the Nature Preserve (please see #’s 14’ 19, 20, 24, 26).
H
2
https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17123/Responses‐to‐Public‐Comments
The updated Trails Network Plan will address the California Coastal Trail and Palos Verdes Loop Trail.
I hope this information is helpful.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation and Parks Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310‐544‐5267
katiel@rpvca.gov
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: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 10:59 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
3
Cc: imac <imac@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Item not on the Council Agenda July 6, 2012 because it is on several
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council,
I am submitting this as an Item not on the Agenda so that when you get to the Consent
Calendar, you and the City Attorney can decide whether or not you may discuss what is
missing from the Staff Report for Item H because it may influence how you deal with either
part of Staff's Recommended actions and subsequent Items.
I have not yet been able to figure out if previous Councils directed the drafting of an NCCP in
pursuit of the claimed benefits of having "Wildlife Agencies" permits or if the objective is an
ever-expanding area of exclusively "pure habitat". I would really like to know if I should take
completing the California Coastal Trail and/or the Palos Verdes Loop Trail off of my "Bucket
List".
Not completing the Trails Network Plan Update appears to be Staff's way of supporting the
PVP Land Conservancy's revised Mission Statement. This is impacting Agenda Items G, 1, 2,
3 and 4 in so far as consideration of the General Plan's Circulation Element influences every
other vaguely land use related action the Council takes.
I will submit a request to participate in a variety of ways just in case someone indicates that
you have a question for me. I hope you all got to celebrate Independence Day each in your
own special way. I am not feeling very independent. …S
Subject: 2021 proposed Alta Agmt amendment
Date: 7/6/2021 9:43:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: katiel@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
4
Hi Katie,
I sure wish that you had contacted me before you submitted this Staff Report for review by
those "above your pay grade". It leaves so many questions unanswered. Everybody else
(people only interested in the TNP) get a 27 hour notice? You asked to postpone our
appointment and you have not rescheduled. Who renegotiated this Agmt? I still have not
been able to find out who on RPV's Staff is the Decision Maker since you can't or may not,
answer my questions about the decisions which have been made.
Your BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION does not go back far enough. The update process
started in 1988 when the Council responded to the fact that Staff was not being proactive
about implementing the TNP. The first step toward a solution was the drafting of the CTP as
an insertion to clarify who was to take the lead in particular circumstances and describe the
expected results using a minimum of the most primary trails as examples. A, B, C and D trails
are stand-alone, multi-jurisdictional "arterials".
Come 2003, Public Works was still not following The Plan. The Rec.& Parks Committee had
been disbanded so nobody was processing the public's requests for amendments. The
Planning Department's proposed "updates" have all been to remove trails from the list.
The Open Space Planning and Rec. & Parks Task Force attempted to draft an update and
found that it made sense to get Council approval of their formatting and policy
recommendations before they went to the effort of redrafting all of the impacted text. 11
"discussion topics" were submitted to Staff in 2004 and the Task Force was disbanded in
2005.
Come 2012, Staff was functioning the same as in 2003 so the Council addressed the 11
Discussion Topics, a Consultant was retained ($7,000.00) and Ara assured us all that a draft
update of the TNP would be presented to Council before the end of the year 2013.
Seven and a half years later, the TNP is not being implemented and Staff is still claiming that
it is not user-friendly. The Staff Recommendation on tonight's Agenda does not present a
solution to the problem. I truly wish that you would let me help. …S
Subject: July 6th City Council Agenda Item: Trails Network Plan Update
Date: 7/5/2021 4:03:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
5
From: listserv@civicplus.com
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
On July 6, 2021, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will consider the following agenda
item:
Consideration and possible action to approve a contract amendment with Alta Planning
and Design to update the Trails Network Plan Update.
The City Council Meeting will be held virtually at 7 p.m. Visit rpvca.gov/participate for
information on how to participate in public comment.
Click here to review the City Council agenda.
Please contact Senior Administrative Analyst Katie Lozano for additional information
at katiel@rpvca.gov or 310-544-5267.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of a "Notify Me" Listserv category you
are signed up for. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message, it is an unmonitored email
address. You can make changes to your subscription by visiting http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Trails Network Plan on
www.rpvca.gov. To unsubscribe, click the following link:
Unsubscribe
Subject: Re: 2021 proposed Alta Agmt amendment. Trails Network Plan Update
Date: 7/3/2021 12:24:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: TeriT@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Teri,
6
Thank you for the early bird copy of the Staff Report. I was hoping to talk with the person who
renegotiated the Contract before the Report was written. Too late now. Katie is not a
decision-maker. I'll send late correspondence to Council and maybe show up to
speak. Consent Calendar Items are so cast in stone it is rarely worth the effort. ...S
Subject: RE: 2021 proposed Alta Agmt amendment. Trails Network Plan Update
Date: 6/29/2021 7:31:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: TeriT@rpvca.gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Cc: KatieL@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello SUNSHINE,
My apologies on the delay in responding to you as I was out of the office for a few days.
I have attached the staff report and I have copied Katie on this email.
The staff report is quite comprehensive but if you want to email Katie with any questions you
may have, I am sure she would be a great resource.
Hope all is well with you and yours.
Teri
Subject: 2021 proposed Alta Agmt amendment. Trails Network Plan Update
Date: 6/28/2021 2:08:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: terit@rpvca.gov
Cc: cc@rpvca.gov
7
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello Teri,
Ara told me that if I had questions concerning an item on a Tentative Agenda, I should ask
you. Here goes.
July 6, 2021 City Council Consent Calendar, R&P, Consider Amd No. 2 to Alta Agmt for Trails
Network Plan. Who is negotiating this potential amendment? What I really need to know
is if this amendment is going to change any of the "interpretations" which Ara, as the Contract
Officer, gave to the Consultant during the Kick-Off Meeting process. Cory is now the Contract
Officer under the 1st Amendment and he refers everything to Katie. Katie has not been able
to confirm which documents were given to the Consultant to work from. I objected to the
vagueness of the original contract's Scope of Work so I am hoping that this amendment is
proposing to introduce the City Council's more recent RFP details.
Since this is to be a Consent Calendar Item, time is of the essence. Once the Agenda Report
is published, there is little the public can do to influence the errors of omission.
Thank you for anything you can do to open a line of communication. …S 310-377-8761
Subject: FW : Portuguese Bend Nature ReseNe
From: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca .gov >
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 3:50 PM
To: archeopolix@gmail.com
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Subject: FW: Portuguese Bend Nature Reserve
Hello Mr. Moran,
Thank you very much for your email. It will be submitted as late correspondence with the Trails Network Plan agenda
item on the City Council agenda this evening.
The City, and many other Southern California trail managers, are in the process of determining how to manage e-bike
use in their open space areas. The City's Nature Preserve is unique in that it is part ofthe City's Natural Communities
Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan area. This means that the State and Federal Fish and Wildlife Agencies
jointly manage it with the City, and its primary purpose is sensitive species preservation (and not recreational
enjoyment). Passive recreational activity is conditionally allowed in the Preserve as long as it does not impact natural
resources and the sensitive species.
The City approved a Public Use Master Plan for the Preserve in 2013, which determines how passive recreational use is
to be managed in the Preserve so that it does not negatively impact sensitive species and their habitats . At this time, it
was determined that mountain biking was an allowed passive recreational use, but motorized vehicle use is not.
Although e-bikes were not popular when the Public Use Master Plan was approved, the City is interpreting the Public
Use Master Plan to prohibit e-bikes. The City is working with our City Attorney to understand how e-bikes should be
managed as an ADA accommodation, and whether the municipal code language requires clarification. The City Council
is tentatively scheduled to consider changes to the Municipal Code regarding e-bikes at the August 17 City Council
meeting. Below is a link with information on how to participate in the meeting.
https ://www .rpvca .gov/772/City-Meeting-Video-and-Agendas
The City will also be holding a Preserve Public Forum on July 21. The City uses these meetings as a great tool to solicit
public feedback on public use related issues in the Preserve and upcoming projects, and also to share information on
upcoming activities and issues. Below is a link with more information on the Public Forum.
https://www.rpvca.gov/705/Quarterly-Public-Forum-Meetings
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative
Analyst
Recreation and Parks
Department
katiel@rpvca .gov
,.,., __ , Connt,.•d w,th thr City from your phone, o, tablet!
DOWNLOAD
1ilfj
A~oi1oblll:' in the-App Sto,t: a nd Googl~ Ploy
1 H •
Phone -(310) 544-5267
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
► GET IT ON
• Google Play
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.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COV/0 -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: Damon Moran <archeopolix@gmail.com >
Sent: Monday, July 5, 2021 5:42 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Subject: Portuguese Bend Nature Reserve
CAUTION: This mall originated from outside of the Clt'l of Rancho Palos Verdes.
After a one hour plus drive through the heart of dense Los Angeles traffic, I was fortunate to find parking in the few
remaining legal spaces available to non-residents near the Portuguese Bend Nature Reserve . I was fully prepared to
enjoy the vistas and more importantly the cool weather on a weekend blighted by mostly scorching temps elsewhere. It
was to my surprise that I was stopped by a Ranger who informed me that my electric assist mountain bike was outlawed
on the trails as it is considered by the local City Council to be a motor vehicle in contrast to California law that does not
view it as such. I was tempted to debate the issue with the Ranger as any resident of this state, or any state for that
matter, knows that a motor vehicle, recreational or otherwise, requires a vehicle registration and the plethora of
ancillary items that said registration requires (i.e. emissions controls, lights, signals, visible registration tags, a license
plate, etc). That of course is patently ridiculous as I am riding a bicycle that has no means to facilitate these items nor
does it provide any locomotion. It has no throttle and produces no propulsion independent of me. In fact it cannot
produce any assistance above 20 mph. Someone unfamiliar with off road cycling might believe that it is some kind of
motor vehicle because they are completely unfamiliar withe-bikes and the manner in which the state of California views
them . Pedal Assist e-bikes like the one I have only allow a fit person to climb like that of an elite athlete, not a
motorbike. Additionally, they allow a disabled person or an unfit person who might otherwise forgo venturing outside,
the ability to pedal at a leisurely pace for hours.They offer no useful assistance downhill as one does not generally pedal
downhill off road when gravity will suffice . In any event, the built in limiters retard any assistance or speed once you
approach 19 mph, which means a none-bike is capable of much more irresponsible speed downhill or on level ground as
it has no such electronic and mechanical impediments.
I was reluctant to take any action as I am not a resident and I know that Palos Verdes has a rich and storied history of
exclusion with regard to its local public spaces such as the beach. Resident surfers would often slash tires of non
residents to prevent them from using "their" beach in addition to other childish and unconscionable acts. I did however
have my position changed when the Ranger I spoke with suggested I write an email. She actually agreed with my
2
position and its merits once I explained how my bicycle operated. Notwithstanding this she was powerless to permit my
entry as the City Council unilaterally voted to outlaw e bikes on the trail and she was merely enforcing the new rule as
per her job.
Some years ago I suffered substantial injuries to my legs that required several surgeries and as such I will never be as
physically capable as I was. My e-bike allows me to do what I could not hope to do, which is to ride up long hills for
hours at a time like a person with perfectly functioning legs who isn't suffering from limited range of movement and
perpetual arthritis as I do. Last time I was at PV I encountered two gentlemen in their 60s who, like me, would never be
able to ride a bike outside were it not for the electrical assist. We marveled at how this new type of bicycle has changed
our lives and allowed us to be healthy and active in a way not possible before.
If it is the opinion of the members of the City Council that e-bikes are a hazardous recreational off road vehicle, then
might I suggest banning all bicycles from the Portuguess Bend Reserve as unassisted bikes pose a similar or greater risk
to hikers and equestrians as they have no built in speed impediments and are just as fast in the hands offit cyclists. A
blanket ban of bicycles would at least be consistent with that logic. There are several public parks that do not allow
bicycles of any kind and such rules don't seem so short-sighted as they clearly bias use to healthy, mobile people with no
disabilities, something that is fairly consistent in our state.
If the members of the City Council are more open to reconsidering their choice regarding e-bikes, then I would be happy
to explain their actual functionality in objective detail. It is important to remember that all trail users (cyclists, hikers, or
equestrians) are capable of being responsible and equally capable of being a nuisance.
Although some cyclists speed, most do not. Trails are inherently dangerous and most people aren't natural thrill seekers.
Additionally Portugues Bend lacks the elevation and trail features that attract elite thrill seekers. Much larger parks in
the higher elevations already provide for that.
Although many hikers litter, most do not. Most hikers are out for a challenging hike at a casual pace with friends,
families, spouses or partners. Although numerous pet owners inexplicably litter the park with waste bags and hikers are
most likely to litter with glass bottles and the like, it is the exception rather than the rule. Most hikers understand that it
is best to not litter, especially in our outdoor spaces.
Although some equestrians act entitled and intimidate hikers and cyclists, most do not. On paper equestrians present
the greatest risk to all trail users as they ride animals that weigh in excess of a ton (horses weigh anywhere from 1000-
2000 lbs). Horses are easily spooked by other trail users and they cause the most erosion in addition to the phenomenal
amount of droppings that can blanket the width of a trail. That said, there are far less equestrians using the trails than
any other user so their impact is reasonable and in 25 years of hiking and riding in trails I have only encountered a few
irresponsible users on horseback.
I am happy to share the trails with all users and I ride responsibly everywhere it is permitted. I never encountered any
trail users at PV who were irked by me being on a mountain bike or more recently on an e-bike. Although I imagine there
will always be trail users who feel the park should only be for them I would say that too is an exception. I hope that you
will at least consider the points I have made in this email. Portuguese Bend is hardly a destination for cyclists being so
small and devoid of iconic trail features as evidenced by how few bikes are there on any given day. I have spent time
there on weekends and seen only two or three bikes say nothing for a weekday. Such a low volume of cyclists would be
unthinkable in the neighboring Santa Monica mountain range.
Kind Regards,
Damon Moran
3
C ITVOl"'t ~CHO PAID6 VERDES
INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FY 2021-22 WORK PLAN
MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee (IMAC) shall be to
provide community input by advising the City Council on matters concerning public works
and park infrastructure, capital improvement projects, and maintenance and preventative
maintenance programs for public buildings; park sites; trails; the stormwater system; the
sanitary sewer system including the Abalone Cove Sewer District; street rights-of-way
and traffic control devices; the Palos Verdes Drive South/Portuguese Bend landslide; and
special projects as assigned by the City Council. (Resolution No. 2014-45)
SUMMANY OF SPECIFIC 2021-22 ASSIGNMENTS
1. Review and provide feedback/recommendations regarding a list of potential capital
improvement projects for the City to consider funding in the future fiscal years.
2. Continue to implement and refine the methodology for soliciting community input
regarding support for (or opposition to) individual projects.
3. Establish a subcommittee to assist in the prioritization of potential projects for the
City to pursue in future fiscal years.
4. Review and provide feedback/recommendations on the mitigation plan to address
erosion ands land movement at Altamira Canyon. (Supports City Council Goal 3c)
5. Review and provide feedback/recommendations on a feasibility analysis for
installation of an underground sanitary sewer system to replace the existing septic
tanks to reduce groundwater seepage within the Portuguese Bend landslide.
(Supports City Council Goal 3d)
6. Review and provide feedback/recommendations on a detailed inventory and
maintenance schedule of the City's public infrastructure and assets, including
assets mapped on the City's GIS. (Supports City Council Goal 4a)
7. Review and provide feedback/recommendations on a Citywide 5G Small Wireless
Facilities (SWF) Master Plan that identifies the preferred and least intrusive
locations to install small wireless facilities including co-locations.
(Supports City Council Goal Sa)
8. Review and provide feedback/recommendations on a Utility Resilient Master Plan
to harden above-ground utility lines and associated tentative timeline.
(Supports City Council Goal 6a)
9. Review and provide feedback/recommendations on a public sewer program to
encourage on-site sewer systems to connect to the public sanitary sewer system.
(Supports City Council Goal 7a).
10. Review and provide feedback/recommendations on a Citywide speed mitigation
plan for reducing speed within City streets. (Supports City Council Goal Ba)
11. Review and provide feedback/recommendations on a Traffic Flow Improvement
Plan to improve traffic flows and provide connectivity between retail outlets and
residents along the Western Avenue Corridor. (Supports City Council Goal 15b).
/.
INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2021-22 Work Plan and Assignments
SUMMANY OF SPECIFIC 2021-22 ASSIGNMENTS {continued)
12. Review and provide feedback/recommendations on a potential pilot roundabout
project at the Intersection of Palos Verdes Drive South and Forrestal Drive and
work with Traffic Safety Committee to provide background and promotion for the
project.
4&.-13. Review and provide feedback/recommendations on the Portuguese Bend
Landslide Remediation project
SUMMARY OF STAFF TIME
A summary of the total staff time estimated for the assignments outlined in this Work
Plan are as follows:
Staff
Potential Support
Assignment No. Meeting Date Hours
Review and provide feedback/recommendations 1 November 2021 a20
regarding a list of potential capital improvement
projects for the City to consider funding in the future
fiscal years.
Continue to implement and refine the methodology for 2 November 2021 a10
soliciting community input regarding support for (or and
opposition to) individual projects. December 2021
Establish a subcommittee to assist in the prioritization 3 July 2021 5
of potential projects for the City to pursue in future
fiscal years.
Review and provide feedback/recommendations on the 4 On an 25
mitigation plan to address land movement at Altamira Ongoing and
Canyon. As-Needed
Basis
Review and provide feedback/recommendations on a 5 November 2021 15
feasibility analysis for installation of an underground
sanitary sewer system to replace the existing septic
tanks to reduce groundwater seepage within the
Portuguese Bend landslide.
Review and provide feedback/recommendations on a 6 April 2022 ~50
detailed inventory and maintenance schedule of the
City's public infrastructure and assets, including assets
mapped on the City's GIS.
Review and provide feedback/recommendations on a 7 November 2021 15
Citywide 5G Small Wireless Facilities (SWF) Master
Plan that identifies the preferred and least intrusive
locations to install small wireless facilities including co-
locations.
Review and provide feedback/recommendations on a
Utility Resilient Master Plan to harden above-ground
utility lines and associated tentative timeline.
Review and provide feedback/recommendations on a
public sewer program to encourage on-site sewer
systems to connect to the public sanitary sewer
system.
Review and provide feedback/recommendations on a
Citywide speed mitigation plan for reducing speed
within City streets.
Review and provide feedback/recommendations on a
Traffic Flow Improvement Plan to improve traffic flows
and provide connectivity between retail outlets and
residents along the Western Avenue Corridor.
Review and provide feedback/recommendations on
a potential pilot roundabout project at the Intersection
of Palos Verdes Drive South and Forrestal Drive and
work with Traffic Safety Committee to provide
backqround and promotion for the pro ject.
Review and provide feedback on the Portuguese Bend
Landslide Remediation project
Total Staff Time
INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2021-22 Work Plan and Assignments
8 May 2022 15
9 May 2022 2G15
10 February 2022 20
11 May 2022 20
12 December 2021 30
4213 December 2021 JG50
49&290
Note: The staff time estimated herein is exclusive of the time to prepare work product
for the City Council.
From:
Sent:
To:
Elliot Levy < elliotlevy@gmail.com >
Monday, July 5, 2021 9:03 PM
CityClerk; CC; Ara Mihranian; Ramzi Awwad
Subject: Johnson Favaro's $300,000 Mistake: Public comment for July 6 CC Regular Business Item
#2 (Ladera Linda cost review)
CAUTION : This email orl lnated from outside of the Cl of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear all,
I am submitting the comments below for the July 6 City Council meeting Public Hearing for Regular Business Item #2
(Ladera Linda cost review) as I will be unable to attend. I hope you all had a safe and happy Independence Day with
family and friends.
Page 5 of Staff's report for the Ladera Linda cost review includes some unexpected good news, noting the revised plan
to enclose the community center bathrooms is projected to save the city $125,000 in construction costs. This is welcome
and surprising news for residents, given Johnson Favaro's inaccurate previous reports to the Council that enclosing the
bathrooms was likely to result in a $175,000 increase to construction costs.
I hope the Council will take a moment to thank Ladera Linda residents and Councilmember Ferraro for advocating for
this sensible, safer and cost-saving amendment to the community center bathroom designs.
I also hope that the Council will take this opportunity to reconsider the selection of Johnson Favaro for this
project, given the firm's $300,000 budgeting error for enclosing the bathrooms. This firm has built its reputation
constructing flashy, glass-walled temples that are out of sync with the needs of the communities that bear the cost of
building and operating these facilities.
This $300,000 mistake by Johnson Favaro should call into question all of the firm's previous comments and
recommendations regarding the Ladera Linda project. In exchange for redesigning the restrooms to produce these
savings, Johnson Favaro now plans to charge the City an additional $10,000 in design costs. What a ridiculous charge to
correct their poorly planned design.
I urge you to take the opportunity demonstrated by the tremendous cost savings in the restroom redesign to revisit
the selection of Johnson Favaro as the lead vendor for this project, as well as the Staff overseeing its design and
construction, with the goal of identifying a more affordable, safer and efficient design in line with the needs of our
community.
You have heard many times from Ladera Linda residents eager to help you achieve these goals and we remain willing to
work with you on a more appropriate plan that will reduce its $16 million+ ballooning cost.
You can act right now to make sensible design changes to Ladera Linda Park that will result in a more appropriate facility
for the community as well as cost savings for taxpayers, including:
•
•
Keeping the current trees and shrubs along the perimeter of the park, instead of increasing landscaping costs by
tearing down these healthy plants to expand ocean views;
Reducing the number of glass walls in the community center to cut construction and energy costs and create a
facility more in line with the architectural standards of the neighborhood; and
1
• Eliminating the tiered outdoor seating area to reduce construction costs and make the Park more appropriate
for community needs instead of attracting unpermitted large outdoor events and weddings.
With these and other sensible changes, and selection of a more responsible architecture firm, your legacy as
Councilmembers can include creating a welcoming community center aligned with the needs of RPV residents, rather
than saddling us with decades of debt and operational costs for an extravagant facility.
Best regards,
Elliot Levy
Ladera Linda homeowner
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Herb Stark < pt17stearman@gmail.com>
Wednesday, June 30 , 2021 12 :37 PM
CityClerk
cc
July 6, 2021 City Council Meeting Regular Business Item 3
CAUTION: This email orl inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Ve fdes.
I am writing this to recommend that the council reject staff's recommendation to extend the shuttle
program.
Up to now the shuttle program has been a failure and any extension would be a waste of taxpayers'
money.
Even with extensive multimedia advertising, signs on major city streets and at the intersection of
Crenshaw and Crest, there has not been a reduction in traffic and parking at Del Cerro which was the
justification for the shuttle .
Further, the shuttle has not been extensively used by the public. Using the staffs own numbers there
were 310 passenger round trips from April 9th through June 20th for the 36 days of service .
That means it cost the city $65 for each round trip using the $20,000 allocated for the three month
demonstration.
During the 36 days the shuttle was running, the average passenger load was 9 people per round trip
over a period of nine and a half hours that the shuttle was running.
Further, the use of multimedia to advertise the shuttle encouraged more people from outside the area
to visit the parks and preserves, compounding the already traffic and parking problems.
Please vote no on the extension.
Herb Stark
Concerned Citizen
Rancho Palos Verdes
1 3.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
LC
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, July 6, 2021 9:35 AM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli
FW : Cancel the Shuttle Program
From: JANET YAMAMOTO <rjec@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, July 5, 2021 7:39 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Stasys Petravicius <stasys1@cox.net>; Rich Schleicher <actsworldretired@gmail.com>; Angelique Lyle
<angeliquelyle@gmail.com>; Michele Carbone <michelepcarbone@gmail.com>; Dave Miller
<dave.miller@pacificgraphix.com>; Eric Nulman <etnulman@gmail.com>; Rod Jensen <jrodjensen@me.com>
Subject: Cancel the Shuttle Program
CAUTION: This email orl lnated from outside of the Cl~ of Rancho Palos Verdes.
City Council Members,
I and the members of the West Portuguese Bend Community Association (WPBCA) a.k.a. Community of Abalone Cove,
implore you to cancel the shuttle program.In the examination of the shuttle program, I did not see a cost/benefit study
of the program .I had previously, several times, asked Parks and Rec. for what the increased cost of running this program
is.It is not totally covered by Proposition A funds, there is no doubt that our city is incurring increased cost, whether it be
increased staff coverage or equipment use (electronic message boards, RPV vehicle use).lt is not self-funded, as what is
being led to believe.
The staff presentation of the supporting documents DOES NOT justify/support the continuation of the program.There
was not any in the presentation.There is no quantifying documentation.629 one-way passenger trips or over 36
days.Yet, the reality is 314.5 (round trip) people over 36 days, taking an average is 8.7 people per day!DO the
analysis.The survey exhibits what?lt does not justify the efforts involved in the management, coordination, and
administration of the Shuttle program.
I have personally observed on several occasions 3 to 5 people on the shuttle being dropped off at Abalone Cove and the
Preserve Area.More disturbing, is that recently I have noticed people being dropped off at the Preserve and walking
down PV Dr. South towards the Golf course or other communities.
Another issue is the use of the Electronic Message Boards.This is a driving hinderance, encouragement of tourism to our
city and takes away the beauty of our city.They are not a necessity in this case and the Message Boards should only be
used in certain and not prolonged occasions.
City Council -does this really justify continuing to run the Shuttle program, when the communities that are affected by
proximity and increased crowds do not want the encouragement of people into their neighborhoods.Please listen to the
people who voted you all into office.We all moved here for the small-town atmosphere and tranquility that is being
taken away by the encouragement of tourism to our city.
1 8.
The Shuttle program was to mitigate the parking issues at Del Cera.Please do not bring the problem to other
communities.Increase citations and the word will spread that our city can only accommodate the limited number of
parking that is available.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a 90-day extension to run concurrently with the implementation of the
ParkMobile online parking reservation system??lt is written with no profound basis.
Staff has no justification to continue the Shuttle program.It is obvious it is not working or cost justified.PLEASE do your
job and cancel the program.
Respectfully submitted,
Janet Yamamoto, Treasurer Community of Abalone Cove
2
Subject: FW : Cancel the Shuttle Program
From: Stasys Petravicius <stasys1@cox.net >
Sent: Monday, July 5, 2021 7:49 PM
To: JANET YAMAMOTO <rjec@cox.net >
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >; Rich Schleicher <actsworldretired@gmail.com >; Angelique Lyle <angeliquelyle@gmail.com >;
Michele Carbone <michelepcarbone@gmail.com >; Dave Miller <dave.miller@pacificgraphix.com >; Eric Nulman
<etnulman@gmail.com >; Rod Jensen <jrodjensen@me .com >
Subject: Re: Cancel the Shuttle Program
CAUTION: This emall orl lnated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Janet -A good writeup. We have enough tourism. The city should stick to keeping up with their normal duties. Also -
address our request for beautifying the PV Dr. South median from Barkentine to the Wayfarers Chapel. They won't even
respond to emails I have sent!
Stasys
On Jul 5, 2021, at 7:38 PM, JANET YAMAMOTO <rjec@cox.net > wrote:
City Council Members,
I and the members of the West Portuguese Bend Community Association (WPBCA) a.k.a. Community of
Abalone Cove, implore you to cancel the shuttle program .In the examination of the shuttle program, I
did not see a cost/benefit study ofthe program .I had previously, several times, asked Parks and Rec . for
what the increased cost of running this program is.It is not totally covered by Proposition A funds, there
is no doubt that our city is incurring increased cost, whether it be increased staff coverage or equipment
use (electronic message boards, RPV vehicle use).lt is not self-funded, as what is being led to believe .
The staff presentation of the supporting documents DOES NOT justify/support the continuation ofthe
program.There was not any in the presentation.There is no quantifying documentation .629 one-way
passenger trips or over 36 days.Yet, the reality is 314.5 (round trip) people over 36 days, taking an
average is 8.7 people per day!DO the analysis.The survey exhibits what?lt does not justify the efforts
involved in the management, coordination, and administration of the Shuttle program .
I have personally observed on several occasions 3 to 5 people on the shuttle being dropped off at
Abalone Cove and the Preserve Area.More disturbing, is that recently I have noticed people being
dropped off at the Preserve and walking down PV Dr. South towards the Golf course or other
communities.
Another issue is the use of the Electronic Message Boards.This is a driving hinderance, encouragement
of tourism to our city and takes away the beauty of our city.They are not a necessity in this case and the
Message Boards should only be used in certain and not prolonged occasions.
City Council -does this really justify continuing to run the Shuttle program, when the communities that
are affected by proximity and increased crowds do not want the encouragement of people into their
1 3.
neighborhoods.Please listen to the people who voted you all into office.We all moved here for the small-
town atmosphere and tranquility that is being taken away by the encouragement of tourism to our city.
The Shuttle program was to mitigate the parking issues at Del Cera.Please do not bring the problem to
other communities.Increase citations and the word will spread that our city can only accommodate the
limited number of parking that is available.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a 90-day extension to run concurrently with the
implementation of the ParkMobile online parking reservation system??lt is written with no profound
basis.
Staff has no justification to continue the Shuttle program.It is obvious it is not working or cost
justified.PLEASE do your job and cancel the program.
Respectfully submitted,
Janet Yamamoto, Treasurer Community of Abalone Cove
2
Subject: FW : CC Meeting July 6,2021 -Item #3
From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com >
Sent: Monday, July 5, 2021 5:56 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Subject: CC Meeting July 6,2021 -Item #3
CAUTION : This email orl lnated from outside of the Cl of Rancho Palos Verdes.
The shuttles were to be a way to redirect people from the Del Cerro area, have them park at City Hall, and
use other trails instead of the Portuguese Bend trail system. But this shuttle service is taking them to the
Portuguese Bend trails anyway. I am against continuing the shuttle service further because it has done little to
reduce congestion at Del Cerro. In the 3 months of operation (36 days) a total of 620 passenger trips or 310
people used the shuttle for an average of 8.6 people per weekend day. That is a very low average and not
worthwhile continuing.
Your charts show that the riders were from:
Peninsula Cities ................... 37%
Neighboring Cities ............... 18%
All other Cities ..................... .45%
These results show that almost half of the riders were from out of our geographical area. So why are we
trying to cater to them? We are operating a "Hop-on, hop-off" tourist bus ride.
We still have not determined the capacity of our trail system nor what number of parking places we should
devote to our trail system so why are we continuing to attract people from the rest of LA County? You are still
creating traffic jams along PVDS on weekends and Holidays.
1 3.
Subject:
Attachments:
FW : July 6th City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #3, Extension of Preserve Shuttle
Program for 90 Days
7 -5-2021 Letter to City Council.docx
From: Del Cerro HOA <DelCerro HOA@hotmail.com >
Sent: Monday, July 5, 2021 3:06 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Cc: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca .gov>; Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca .gov >
Subject: July 6th City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #3, Extension of Preserve Shuttle Program for 90 Days
CAUTION: This email orl lnated from outside of the Cl of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Council Members,
Attached please find a letter from the Del Cerro HOA commenting on agenda item #3 for the July 6th City
Council Meeting.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me .
Sincerely,
Kathy Edgerton
President
Del Cerro HOA
1 3
7/5/2021
To: RPV City Council
Subject: July 6, 2021, City Council Meeting Agenda Item #3, Extension of Preserve Shuttle
Program for 90 Days
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
Thank you for your continuing efforts in addressing quality of life issues that residents near the
Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail trailheads are experiencing.
Del Cerro HOA supports extending the pilot shuttle program for 90 days as long as a stop at Del
Cerro Park, on Crest Rd., or on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd. is not added to the route. It is
our understanding that the purpose of the shuttle program and other preserve-related parking
and traffic measures being initiated by the City is to mitigate the negative impacts the HOAs
near the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail entrances are experiencing by re-directing people to
other areas of the preserve and more equitably distributing visitors throughout the preserve -
to mitigate the impact on nearby residents and potential damage to the preserve's protected
species and habitat. Visitors who are currently parking near the southern end of Crenshaw will
continue to do so as long as there is available parking, as driving to City Hall to wait for a shuttle
will generally take significantly longer than driving directly to the Crenshaw/Crest area, parking
and walking an additional short distance to reach the trailheads. As a result, adding a shuttle
stop here would only result in a net increase to the number of people initiating their hikes from
the Del Cerro area without reducing the number of visitors or cars parking in the immediate
area, adding to the continuous noise and disturbances our residents experience.
You may recall from the analysis we provided to the Council and Staff last August that we
estimated that at least 60 parking spaces on the west side of Crenshaw and on Crestridge are
generally available for visitors to the preserve but are currently rarely used. These spaces are
equal to the entire number of parking space included in the parking reservation system south of
Crest Rd., so we expect that there will continue to be plenty of available parking space to
accommodate any reduction in parking availability on Crenshaw south of Crest Rd. due to the
reservation system. In addition, the 3 loading zone spaces on Crenshaw and 2 handicapped
spaces on Park Place are available for those who cannot walk the additional distance.
To date, the shuttle has had a negligible impact on the number of cars arriving at the southern
end of Crenshaw. To estimate the number of cars actually reduced on Crenshaw as a result of
the shuttle, the number of passenger trips per day must be reduced to account for the facts
that (1) in virtually all cases, two passenger trips equals one actual preserve visitor (because
most users will return by shuttle to the location where their cars are parked); (2) on average,
each car will bring two visitors; and (3) 35% of the shuttle users indicated that they normally
park in the Del Cerro area. These assumptions result in an implied reduction in cars at the
1
7/5/2021
southern end of Crenshaw of less than two cars. With the implementation of the parking
reservation system, it is possible that shuttle ridership will increase. Only by extending the pilot
program period will we find the answer.
We appreciate Staff's continued cooperation with Del Cerro area residents to resolve the issues
that surround preserve access.
Respectfully submitted,
The Del Cerro HOA Board
Kathy & Al Edgerton
Miriam & Pete Varend
Gregory MacDonald
Dion Hatch
Bharathi Singh
Mark Kernen
Megan & Bob Moore
2
Subject: FW: Shuttle
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Douthwright <dddrpv@icloud.com>
Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 5:22 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Shuttle
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Council and Staff,
The Island View HOA is in favor of extending the shuttle program for 90 days. However, we are opposed to adding any
stop at or near Del Cerro Park.
Respectfu I ly,
Don Douthwright
President
The Island View Homeowners Association
Sent from my iPhone
1 3.