CC SR 20211019 G - Preserve Parking Ord 650 2nd Reading
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 10/19/2021
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to adopt Ordinance No. 650, amending Chapter 12.16
(Streets, Parks and Recreational Facilities) of Title 12 (Streets, Sidewalks and Public
Places) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Adopt Ordinance No. 650, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES RENAMING THE TITLE OF CHAPTER
12.16 TO READ, “STREETS, PARKS, PRESERVE, AND
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES”; REPEALING AND REPLACING
SECTIONS 12.16.010 (PROTECTION OF FLORA, FAUNA AND
PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES), 12.16.020 (MOTORIZED
VEHICLES) AND 12.16.045 (AIRCRAFT); AND ADDING 12.16.170
(VENDING, COMMERCIAL SERVICES, AND INDUSTRIAL
ACTIVITIES IN PARKS, PRESERVE, BEACHES, AND
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES) OF CHAPTER 12.16 (STREETS,
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES) OF TITLE 12 (STREETS,
SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES) OF THE RANCHO PALOS
VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE, TO REGULATE THE OPERATION OF
MOTORIZED VEHICLES, MOTORIZED BICYCLES, AND ELECTRIC
BICYCLES IN CITY PARKS, PRESERVE AND RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES; AND TO REGULATE VENDING, COMMERCIAL
SERVICES, AND INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY IN PARKS, THE
PRESERVE, BEACHES, AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: NA
Additional Appropriation: NA
Account Number(s): NA
ORIGINATED BY: Katie Lozano, Senior Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Cory Linder, Director of Recreation and Parks
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
1
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Ordinance No. 650 amending Chapter 12.16 of the City’s Municipal Code
(page A-1)
B. October 5, 2021, Staff Report
C. Correspondence (page C-1)
BACKGROUND:
On October 5, 2021, Ordinance No. 650 (Attachment A) was introduced by the City
Council to make the following modifications to the Chapter 12.16 of the City of Ranch o
Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC):
1. Rename RPVMC Chapter 12.16 to include the word “Preserve,” and to read ,
“Streets, Parks, Preserve, and Recreational Facilities.”
2. Repeal and replace RPVMC 12.16.010 to prohibit damage to City facilities,
including vegetation.
3. Repeal and replace RPVMC 12.16.020 to regulate motorized vehicles and Class
1 e-bicycles in the Preserve (all other classes of e-bicycles are prohibited).
4. Repeal and replace RPVMC 12.16.045 to prohibit ultralights including paragliding
from flying over City property.
5. Add RPVMC 12.16.170 to regulate vending, commercial services, and industrial
activities in parks, Preserve, beaches, and recreational facilities.
This evening, the ordinance is presented for second reading and adoption. If adopted, the
ordinance will go into effect on November 19, 2021.
DISCUSSION:
Since the October 5 City Council Meeting, the City has received significant public
correspondence opposing the decision to allow Class 1 e-bicycles in the Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve (Preserve). The City Council’s decision to allow Class 1 e-bicycles in the
Preserve was based primarily on the differences between the three classes of e -bicycles.
That said, in light of the significant public comments received, Staff has included
information below to provide clarifying information for consideration:
• The definitions of the three classes of e-bicycles
• How other jurisdictions manage e-bicycles
• Roles and interpretations of the City’s Municipal Code and Public Use Master Plan
Definitions of Class 1-3 E-bikes
The definitions below are consistent with the California Vehicle Code. However, it is
important to note e-bikes are a new technology and while as of 2020 the e -bike industry
2
and many U.S. states have coalesced around a common system of three classes, even
today interpretations of these classes differ slightly across retailers and manufactures.
Class 1 e-bike
• Electric motor provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling.
• Electric motor stops assisting when the bike reaches 20 miles per hour
Class 2 e-bike
• Electric motor/throttle may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle
• Electric motor stops assisting when the bike reaches 20 miles per hour
Class 3 e-bike
• Electric motor provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling.
• Electric motor stops assisting when the bike reaches 28 miles per hour
• Must have a speedometer
Additionally, e-bike classes 1-3 must have a capacity of less than 750 watts, and per the
California Vehicle Code, must have a label containing the classification number, top
assisted speed, and motor wattage of the electric bicycle, printed in Arial font in at least
9-point type.
How Other Jurisdictions Manage E-bicycles
With the recent popularity of motorized bicycles (also known as e-bicycles or e-bikes),
land managers in Los Angeles County and beyond are working to determine how they
should be regulated. Staff agendized the topic of e-bikes at the October 7, 2021 Quarterly
Los Angeles Trail Managers Task Force Meeting to continue communication on how other
land managers in Los Angeles County are managing e -bikes. Most managers are
currently prohibiting e-bikes, and stated significant challenges enforcing e-bike
regulations, including that often e-bikes are indistinguishable from regular mountain bikes,
the popularity of the sport, and lack of staff resources. Meeting participants included
representatives from the US Forest Service, National Park Service, California State
Parks, Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, Los Angeles County
Recreation and Parks Department, and numerous land managers within Los Angeles
County. Below is a summary of the two open space area jurisdictions within Los Angeles
County that allow e-bike use:
• National Park Service: Manage parts of the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area and Simi Hills. Class 1 e-bikes are allowed on dirt trails.
• US Forest Service: E-bikes are allowed on motorized off-highway vehicle (OHV)
trails (most of which are further back into property) and on roads.
Preserve Public Use Master Plan and Municipal Code
The Preserve Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) is the City Council-adopted document that
defines how public use may take place in the Preserve in a way that balances public
3
access with natural resource protection; and it lists allowed and prohibited uses. The
PUMP is also a necessary component of the City’s Natural Communities Conservation
Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). However, uses defined as prohibited in the
PUMP, are not enforceable until the City additionally codifies them in the RPVMC and
bail schedule. The RPVMC is the collection of laws passed by the City Council, and it is
the document that assigns enforcement officers the authority to enforce those laws, and
defines the penalties for violations.
When the City, PVPLC, and Wildlife Agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife) developed the PUMP , e-bicycles were not
popular, and they were not specifically allowed nor prohibited by the PUMP. With the City
Attorney's assistance, Park Rangers have been interpreting RPVMC 12.16.020
prohibiting motorized vehicles, to also include prohibiting e -bicycles. Signs have been
installed at key trailheads prohibiting e-bicycles, and while e-bicycles presence has since
decreased, regular violations still occur, as this is an ever-growing and popular sport.
The PUMP document will have to be updated to reflect allowing only Class 1 e -bicycles
in the Preserve. Amendments to the PUMP document will require review by the PVPLC
and the Wildlife Agencies.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
As noted above, the City has received public correspondence expressing opposition and
concerns with allowing e-bicycles in the Preserve, which is attached for review
(Attachment C).
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative action s are available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Direct Staff to revise Ordinance No. 650 for re-introduction at a future City Council
meeting.
2. Do not adopt, in whole or in part, Ordinance No. 650 at this time and direct staff to
conduct an analysis on potential impacts to natural resources and management
techniques to consider allowing Class 1 e-bicycles in the Preserve.
4
--
01203.0001/732063.8
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
RENAMING THE TITLE OF CHAPTER 12.16 TO READ, “STREETS,
PARKS, PRESERVE, AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES”;
REPEALING AND REPLACING SECTIONS 12.16.010
(PROTECTION OF FLORA, FAUNA AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND
STRUCTURES), 12.16.020 (MOTORIZED VEHICLES) AND
12.16.045 (AIRCRAFT); AND ADDING 12.16.170 (VENDING,
COMMERCIAL SERVICES, AND INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES IN
PARKS, PRESERVE, BEACHES, AND RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES) OF CHAPTER 12.16 (STREETS, PARKS AND
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES) OF TITLE 12 (STREETS,
SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES) OF THE RANCHO PALOS
VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE, TO REGULATE THE OPERATION OF
MOTORIZED VEHICLES, MOTORIZED BICYCLES, AND ELECTRIC
BICYCLES IN CITY PARKS, PRESERVE AND RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES; AND TO REGULATE VENDING, COMMERCIAL
SERVICES, AND INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY IN PARKS, THE
PRESERVE, BEACHES, AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has the authority to adopt regulations
to further the public health, safety, and welfare, pursuant to its authority under Art. XI,
Sec. 7 of the California Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a Natural Communities Conservation
Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (“NCCP/HCP”) for the purpose of providing
comprehensive management and conservation of multiple species, including but not
limited to species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 within the
Palos Verdes Nature Preserve (“Preserve”); and
WHEREAS, the NCCP/HCP requires the City to account for and remediate any
substantial habitat damage within the Preserve; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes wishes to clarify
such prohibitions and to provide clear enforcement guidance to City personnel, park
rangers, and law enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt provisions of the Public Use Master
Plan (“PUMP”) prohibiting damage to the Preserve into the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code to provide for mechanisms to enforce such prohibitions; and
WHEREAS, the City also wishes to enact provisions to better regulate, enforce,
and seek remedies to damaged facilities and habitat in City parks , the Preserve and
recreational facilities; and
A-1
01203.0001/732063.8
WHEREAS, the City has the authority to obtain reimbursement for damage done
to City property, pursuant to Public Utilities. Code § 10251, and to City trees, pursuant to
Civil Code § 3346; and
WHEREAS, the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code currently prohibits parking
and operating “motorized vehicles” in parks and recreational facilities except in
designated areas, other than authorized park employees or city agents in performance of
their duties; and
WHEREAS, there has been an increased use of electric bicycles in City parks,
Preserve, and recreational facilities; and
WHEREAS, Vehicle Code Section 21207.5 (a) prohibits the use of motorized
bicycles or class 3 electric bicycles on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane
established pursuant to Section 21207, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail,
unless it is within or adjacent to a roadway or unless the City expressly permits it by
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Vehicle Code Section 21207.5 (b) also allows the City to prohibit class
1 and 2 electric bicycles on bicycle paths or trails within the City; and
WHEREAS, the use of motor vehicles, motorized bicycles, electric bicycles in City
parks, Preserve, and recreational facilities (collectively referred to as City recreational
spaces) poses a safety risk to other visitors of these facilities, and such vehicles cause
damage to parks and protected habitats; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to mitigate the impacts of motor vehicles,
electric bicycles, motorized bicycles in City recreational spaces by clarifying the extent of
restrictions on their use in City parks, Preserve, and recreational facilities; and
WHEREAS, the California Vehicle Code defines “motor vehicle,” “bicycle,” “electric
bicycle,” and “motorized bicycle” or “moped,” the incorporation of which into the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall serve to eliminate any un certainty as to what types of
vehicles are prohibited from use in City parks and recreational facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the public interest and
welfare to adopt this Ordinance in order to clarify restrictions on the use of motor vehicles
within City parks, Preserve, and recreational facilities and to prohibit the use of motor
vehicles, electric bicycles, motorized bicycles in these facilities, both to preserve the
facilities and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of visitors; and
WHEREAS, attempts by the City to curtail the prolific and unlawful use of motor
vehicles, electric bicycles, and motorized bicycles ,within City parks and recreational
facilities has been met with resistance by visitors; and
A-2
01203.0001/732063.8
WHEREAS, as part of the NCCP/HCP the PUMP has been established to balance
public access to the Preserve with natural resource protection; and
WHEREAS, the PUMP prohibits any commercial or industrial uses within the
Preserve, or any activity that would damage the Preserve; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to clarify such prohibitions and to provide clear
enforcement guidance to City code enforcement personnel and Park Rangers; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to adopt provisions of the PUMP prohibiting
commercial and industrial activities within the Preserve into the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code to provide for mechanisms to enforce such prohibitions; and
WHEREAS, the City also wishes to better regulate vending commercial services,
industrial activity, and habitat damage in City parks and recreational facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to establish vending regulations in the Preserve,
parks, beaches, and recreational facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the public interest and
welfare to adopt this Ordinance in order to provide for an enforcement mechanism that
achieves the goals of the PUMP, to preserve and protect endangered species, and to
allow for comprehensive management of the parks, Preserve and recreational facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The facts set forth in the Recitals are true and correct, and are
incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. Chapter 12.16 “STREETS, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES” is hereby renamed “STREETS, PARKS, PRESERVE, AND
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.”
Section 3. Section 12.16.010, (Protection of flora, fauna and public buildings and
structures) of Chapter 12.16 (Streets, Parks and Recreational Facilities) of Title 12
(Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is
hereby repealed and replaced with the following:
“12.16.010 – Protection of flora, fauna and public buildings and
structures.
A. No person other than authorized park employees or city agents or other
authorized persons in the performance of their duties shall cut, break, dig
A-3
01203.0001/732063.8
up, remove, or in any manner injur e or alter any plant, animal, public
building, structure or contents therei n on any park or municipal property.
B. This prohibition may be enforced by any means permitted under this
Code or state law.
C. If any damage to any City-owned or managed plants, animals, public
buildings, structures or contents therein requires the City to incur costs or
expend either money or personnel time to correct such damage, the City
may seek to recover such costs or expenditures, including reasonable
attorneys’ fees, as permissible under this Code and state law.”
Section 4. Section 12.16.020 (Motorized Vehicles) of Chapter 12.16 (Streets,
Parks and Recreational Facilities) of Title 12 (Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places) of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby repealed and replaced with the
following:
“12.16.020 - Motor Vehicles, Motorized Bicycles, and Electric Bicycles
in Parks, Preserve, and Recreational Facilities Regulated.
A. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that City parks, the Preserve,
and recreational facilities (collectively, City recreational spaces) are
maintained in good condition and in a manner that protects the health,
safety, and welfare of visitors by preventing the use of motor vehicles and
electric bikes that pose a risk to park visitors or damage park property.
B. No person shall park or operate any motor vehicle, electric bicycle,
motorized bicycle, or moped in City recreational spaces, except in
designated areas, other than authorized park employees or city agents in
performance of their duties.
C. For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
1. “Motor vehicle” shall have the same meaning as Section 415
of the Vehicle Code, including any amendments or successor statutes
thereto.
2. “Motorized bicycle” or “moped” shall have the same meaning
as Section 406 of the Vehicle Code, including any amendments or
successor statutes thereto.
3. “Electric bicycle” shall have the same meaning as Section
312.5 of the Vehicle Code, including any amendments or successor statutes
thereto, excluding therefrom Class 1 electric bicycles as defined in Section
312.5(a)(1) of such code.
A-4
01203.0001/732063.8
D. A person shall not operate any motor vehicle, electric bicycle,
motorized bicycle, or moped on or over any fire break or any fire protection
roads which are posted against public use and provided with locked gates,
or operate any motor vehicle, electric bicycle, motorized bicycle, or moped
on or over any riding or hiking trail, including a riding and hiking trail
established under Article 6 of Chapter 1 of Division 5 of the Public
Resources Code of the state of California.
E. No part of this section shall be construed to prohibit the use in City
recreational spaces of self-propelled wheelchairs, motorized tricycles, or
motorized quadricycles, if operated by a person who, by reason of physical
disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian.”
Section 4(A). Section 12.16.045 (Aircraft) of Chapter 12.16 (Streets, Parks and
Recreational Facilities) of Title 12 (Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places) of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby repealed and replaced with the following:
“Section 12.16.045 (Aircraft)
A. To the maximum extent permitted by law, no person shall land,
release, take off in, or launch any ultralight vehicle or balloon, as defined by
14 CFR §§ 101.1 & 103.1, including ultralight vehicles commonly known
as hang glider, paragliding device, or pa rasail, from any City-owned land
without the express written permission from the City.
B. To the maximum extent permitted by law, no person shall fly any
ultralight vehicle or balloon, as defined by 14 CFR §§ 101.1 & 103.1,
including ultralight vehicles commonly known as hang glider, paragliding
device, or parasail, above or over any property that is owned, controlled, or
managed by the City without the express written permission of the City.
C. To the maximum extent permitted by law, any person who on any
City-owned park, beach, Preserve or other property owned or maintained
by the City conducts or participates in the operation of any ultralight vehicle
or balloon, as defined by 14 CFR §§ 101.1 & 103.1, including ultralight
vehicles commonly known as hang glider, paragliding device, or parasail, in
a manner that is in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or
property, or without first obtaining the express written permission from the
City, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Section 5. Section 12.16.170 (Vending, Commercial Services and Industrial
Activities Regulated in the City Parks, Preserve, and Recreational Facilities) of Chapter
12.16 (Streets, Parks and Recreational Facilities“ of Title 12 (Streets, Sidewalks and
Public Places) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:
A-5
01203.0001/732063.8
“12.16.170 – Vending, Commercial Services, and Industrial Activities
Regulated in Parks, Preserve, Beaches, and Recreational Facilities.
A. Vending
1. No vending area shall be placed within 100 feet of an intersection or
Park or Preserve trail head.
2. No vending shall sell within the Preserve, on any City beach, or within
open space areas and trails.
3. In addition to the operational standards in RPVMC Section 5.28.070,
the following shall also be prohibited for any sidewalk vendor operating in
any park:
a) Operate outside the hours of operation of the park.
b) Operate more than six (6) feet from the outer edge of any
walking or pathway in the park.
c) Operate within 50 feet of any other sidewalk vendor in the
park.
d) Operate on, or within 100 feet of the outer edge of, any sports
field or playground equipment area.
e) Utilize any bench, table, barbeque pit, covered gathering
area, or other publicly-owned structure or amenity in the park
in any way as part of the sidewalk vending operation.
f) Operate within 25 feet of the outer edge of any bench, table,
barbeque pit, covered gathering area, or other publicly-owned
structure or amenity in the park.
g) Vending in a public park during any scheduled event, whether
it is a City event or a private event for which a temporary use
permit has been obtained.
h) Vending is prohibited from operating in a park if the city has
entered into exclusive agreements for the sale of food or
merchandise by one (1) or more concessionaires for that park.
B. Commercial Services and Industrial Activities
1. No commercial service or industrial activity is permitted within any
City-owned park, Preserve, beach, or recreational facilities unless expressly
authorized in writing by the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee.
For the purposes of this section, “industrial service” shall mean any use of
land, buildings or structures designed for the purpose of manufacturing,
assembling, making, preparing, inspecting, ornamenting, finishing, treating,
altering, repairing, warehousing or storing or adapting for sale of any goods,
substance, article or thing, or any part thereof and the storage of building
and construction equipment and materials. Commercial service shall mean
any service sold for profit, including but not limited to camping, boot camps,
classes, instruction, guided hikes, commercial dog walking, or organized
picnics.
A-6
01203.0001/732063.8
2. In deciding whether to grant such authorization for use pursuant to
this section, the City Manager or his/her designee shall consider time of
day, relative crowding of the area requested, factors of public safety,
availability of areas approved for such activities, impact of such activities
upon sensitive habitat and adjacent neighborhoods, and any other factor
relevant to the welfare of those utilizing City-owned parks, Preserve,
beaches or recreational facilities.
3. A decision regarding authorization pursuant to Section A, above,
may be appealed in writing to the City Manager within ten calendar days of
the decision. The City Manager shall make a decision on the appeal within
ten calendar days of receipt of the appeal. The decision of the City Manager
shall be final, and is subject to judicial review pursuant to Section 1094.5
and 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
Section 6. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because: (1) it does not
constitute a “project” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(2) in that it constitutes
general policy and procedure making; (2) it does not constitute a “project” under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5) in that it has no potential for resulting in physical change
to the environment, either directly or indirectly, and (3) in the alternative, it is exempt from
CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2), since the activity will not result
in direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and
Section 15061(b)(3), since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this
Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment .
Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or
circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or
enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses or phrases of this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or
circumstance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted each section,
subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase hereof, irrespective of the
fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences,
clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable.
Section 8. Certification and Posting. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to
be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage,
in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City
Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause
this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the
Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.
Section 9. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption.
A-7
01203.0001/732063.8
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of October, 2021.
______________________________
Eric Alegria, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
I, TERESA TAKAOKA, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby
certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 650 passed first reading on October 5, 2021, was duly and
regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on
October 19, 2021, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_______________________
City Clerk
A-8
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Electroc Bikes on the Reserve
From: William Ailor <billailor@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 9:22 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Barbara Ailor <barbailor@gmail.com>
Subject: Electroc Bikes on the Reserve
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
RE: Electric Bikes on the Preserve
Dear members of the City Council:
We urge you to reverse the decision to allow use of electric bikes on the preserve for several reasons:
1. Electric bikes will increase the speed of bikes using the preserve. These vehicles enable people with minimal
athletic skills to go fast in places where they shouldn’t‐‐not a desirable feature on narrow trails where people very
old and very young are taking walks.
2. Increased speed these bikes enable will certainly damage sensitive habitat. As you know, this land was set aside
to preserve and protect “critical natural habitat,” and these motorized vehicles will certainly damage habitat as
their increased speed widens curves and creates new trails where they now don’t exist.
3. These bikes will increase hazards to non‐bike users. The Volunteer Trail Watch program has documented the
impact regular bikes have on habitat and hikers for nine years. With all that data, why would electric bikes be
allowed to exacerbate that kind of intrusion on our precious reserves. And has the city asked equestrians how
they and their horses are affected by bikes?
4. Electric bikes are “motorized” vehicles. The only difference between an electric bike and a motorcycle is
noise. Are other motorized vehicles next?
5. The preserve was created to be a place where people could take a walk and enjoy the tranquil beauty of this
special area. These bikes create an environment where a walker must constantly worry about his or her safety as
motorized vehicles kick up dust and turn walking paths into raceways. Irresponsible bike users will drive those
looking to enjoy quiet walks away.
Finally, we ask:
Do you really want the reserve to become a playground for bike users rather than the home for the birds and butterflies
this land was acquired to protect?
Do you really want to destroy the tranquility and opportunity for quiet walks in a beautiful natural area in favor of
creating a park for those who enjoy racing down hills, around blind trails, and kicking up dust?
2
We hope the answer is an emphatic “no.” Please do not allow electric bikes on any reserve.
William & Barbara Ailor
1052 Via Palestra
Palos Verdes Estates
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: E-bikes and Preserve
From: tony baker <tbake377@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 6:35 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: E‐bikes and Preserve
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Council
I and my family have hiked the Palos Verdes Preserve since its inception and have enjoyed its beauty and the wild nature
within. The Preserve's foremost mandate is the protection and preservation of habitat and wildlife. We have been avid
supporters of the Preserve.
This unconscionable decision to allow e‐bikes on the Preserve goes against the very reason that the Preserve was
approved with the NCCP. Many groups and wildlife agencies came together to make it happen. I must say that I am
appalled that this was passed against staff recommendations and without input from those who will be most affected. I
noted that council did hear from several advocates of e‐bikes before voting. The residents of Palos Verdes and users of
the Preserve should have a say on whether to allow bikes with motors on the Preserve.
These motorized vehicles with their large tires will exacerbate the erosion that is already occurring on the trails. Trails
will be widened and habitat and wildlife will suffer as a consequence.
Since our natural open space will be the only one in the County of Los Angeles to allow them, the Preserve will be
inundated with e‐bikes that are becoming very popular. The Preserve is already suffering from overuse due to social
media.
It will not be possible for rangers to differentiate between class 1, 2 and 3 e‐bikes unless they can catch up with them‐‐
which is doubtful.
There will be the potential for collisions with hikers, spooked horses and other conflicts.
Please reconsider this decision.
Thank you for your consideration.
Tony Baker
16 Limetree Ln.
Portuguese Bend
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Electric Bikes approval in Preserve
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Akram Baluch <akram.baluch@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 12:57 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Electric Bikes approval in Preserve
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear city council members
The approval of electric bikes in the preserve and other trails in Rancho Palos Verdes creates a serious injury risk to the
hikers and to the environment.
We have witnessed bikers coming down the trails at a significant speed and there have been times where hikers were
lucky to avoid serious injuries.
Electric bikes will makes this situation worst and the injuries will be more serious I request city council to reconsider
there decision and disapprove use of electric bikes in the preserve and on the other trails.
Regards
Akram Baluch
Resident: Rancho Palos Verdes
Sent from my iPhone
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: No to E-bikes in the preserve
Attachments:e bike opposition letter Oct 11 2021.docx
From: cnps.president@yahoo.com <cnps.president@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 4:37 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: No to E‐bikes in the preserve
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Here are my comments on the recent council decision to approve use of e-bikes. I am
including it inline in this email and attaching it as a word document.
October 10, 2021
City Council – Rancho Palos Verdes
I am writing to ask that the council rescind its approval of electric bikes in the preserves.
Already, I have seen erosion of trails and hillsides from bike activity. Electric bikes are
heavier than non-motorized bikes and will lead to even more erosion. This will have a
lasting negative impact on the habitat. Approval of these bikes goes against what the
Preserve stands for: Protection and preservation of habitat and wildlife
I have had the terrifying experience of having mountain bike riders flying down the trail
and having to jump out of the way to avoid being hit by them. I have seen horses
spooked on the trail by mountain bikes zooming down hills. E-bikes are heavier and
faster than conventional bikes which will only exacerbate the problem.
Our preserves are a treasure. They provide opportunity for our residents and visitors
alike to get away from the bustle of the city. This yields health benefits to people and
increases the property values of our homes. Please protect our treasure and keep
motorized bikes out of the preserves.
2
Sincerely
David Berman
President
South Coast Chapter, California Native Plant Society
RPV resident
October 10, 2021
City Council – Rancho Palos Verdes
I am writing to ask that the council rescind its approval of electric bikes in the preserves.
Already, I have seen erosion of trails and hillsides from bike activity. Electric bikes are heavier
than non-motorized bikes and will lead to even more erosion. This will have a lasting negative
impact on the habitat. Approval of these bikes goes against what the Preserve stands
for: Protection and preservation of habitat and wildlife
I have had the terrifying experience of having mountain bike riders flying down the trail and
having to jump out of the way to avoid being hit by them. I have seen horses spooked on the trail
by mountain bikes zooming down hills. E-bikes are heavier and faster than conventional bikes
which will only exacerbate the problem.
Our preserves are a treasure. They provide opportunity for our residents and visitors alike to get
away from the bustle of the city. This yields health benefits to people and increases the property
values of our homes. Please protect our treasure and keep motorized bikes out of the preserves.
Sincerely
David Berman
President
South Coast Chapter, California Native Plant Society
RPV resident
California Native Plant Societ~
Soutb Coast chapter
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Attached letter opposing Class 1 E-Bikes in Preserves
From: Paul Blieden <bliedenp@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 6:33 PM
To: Ann Dalkey <abdalkey@verizon.net>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; David Quadhamer <dquadhamer@yahoo.com>; Jazmin Rios <mjazminrios@pvsb‐
audubon.org>; Tracy Drake <tdrakehawk@gmail.com>; Vincent Lloyd <vincent@sabik.org>; tony baker
<tbake377@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Attached letter opposing Class 1 E‐Bikes in Preserves
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Send in the letter today to make the deadline.
Well done Ann !!
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 4:02 PM Ann Dalkey <abdalkey@verizon.net> wrote:
Ann
Ann Dalkey
abdalkey@verizon.net
310‐540‐3090
‐‐
Paul Blieden
www.office‐art.com
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: E Bikes in Preserves
From: Leslie Brygart <lbrygart@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 9:32 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: E Bikes in Preserves
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Council,
As someone who regularly hikes in many of the Rancho Palos Verdes Preserves I was upset to hear that E Bikes may be
allowed on Preserve trails. I believe that this is a very bad idea.
E‐Bikes are dangerous for wildlife in the Preserves
E‐Bikes are dangerous for horses in the Preserves
E‐Bikes are dangerous for hikers who may be hit by speeding E‐Bikes
E‐Bikes diminish the enjoyment of the quiet peacefulness of the Preserves.
Please do not allow E‐Bikes in the Preserves.
Sincerely,
Leslie Brygart
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: E-bikes
From: Anita & Bob Caplan <arcaplan2@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 1:54 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: E‐bikes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello City Council members,
I enjoy walking/hiking in the Conservancy. Several times I have been taken by surprise when approached by a rider on an
E‐bike. I have had to rapidly jump aside to keep from being hit. I am 79 years old and have osteoarthritis. A fall could be
dangerous to me.
Permitting E‐bikes exposes the Conservancy to liability.
Please do not allow them.
Anita Caplan
Redondo Beach
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Bicycles in PVNP
From: Dorie and Brooks <xcskiers@earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2021 8:58 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Bicycles in PVNP
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
PVNP planners,
As you know, our PVNP has been planned as a ‘reserve’ for the animals and plants that live there. Many are
unique here, rare and endangered (see PVPLC annual reports) and cannot stand up to the fast speed of
bicycles, let alone E-bicycles.
E-bicycles travel faster than 10 mph and weigh in at 35 to 70 lbs. The combination of weight and speed can be
severely damaging, if not deadly, in a surprise encounter with animals that live in the reserve as well as hikers
and horses, especially on narrow trails.
As you know, reserves are subject to restrictions established by the Natural Community Conservation
Plan/Habitat Conservation Plans which give the preservation of habitat and protection of designated species
top priority. Since the purpose of our reserves is to protect habitat and wildlife let’s keep the impact of human
visitors to the original plan – hiking, walking, horse-riding – no bicycles! Too dangerous!
Dorothy Chadwick,
RPV home-owner, elderly hiker and long-time lover, user and protector of our unique preserves
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Electric bikes in preserve
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Rebecca Celeste Cicoria <orodeorodeo@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 9:36 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Electric bikes in preserve
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To all City Council members & Staff,
I was beyond horrified to learn the city was going to allow bicycles with electric motors on preserve trails. This goes
against every ideal behind the very founding of our local Land Conservancy. I cannot even fathom it as a possibility.
All bicycles in the preserve have been a big problem for me in the first place. My horse & I have very nearly been run off
a cliff more than once by bikers in full body armor, deaf to my calls to please slow down. If any of you have been on a
horse when a bicyclist suddenly comes barreling towards you from around a blind corner or careening full blast down
trail behind you then you know what I’m talking about. If not, I can only tell you that it turns a beautiful relaxing day into
& near death experience.
Why would you want to make these scenarios even more common & dare I say more deadly? As I am also an an avid
hiker, these encounters are jarring enough….
My family is a big supporter of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy & has been since it’s very founding. We
support the preservation of nature & love sharing the natural beauty of our peninsula with the public. But our
understanding has alway been that it would be a nature preserve ‐ not a recreation area. I don’t know anybody ‐ even
friends with electric bikes ‐ who thinks this is a good idea.
Our world is in desperate need of more peaceful, quiet spaces to enjoy nature & this goes entirely in the opposite
direction. I urge you to please reconsider.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Cicoria
Sent from my iPhone
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Comments on upcoming agenda item
From: DeJesus, Laura <Laura.DeJesus@Mattel.com>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 9:21 AM
To: Planning <Planning@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Comments on upcoming agenda item
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello: I would like to responded to an agenda item for a future meeting, the consideration of allowing Electric bikes into
the preserve.
Hi feel extremely strong that only human powered vehicles should be allowed on the preserve trails. E bikes are
considered motorized vehicles which are banned from all trails which I feel is the correct designation. E bikes can travel
very fast and it will be very destructive to the terrane as well as unsafe for others using the trails. I have observed that
many E bikes are very dangerous when using the roads, they do not follow most traffic rules which I would expect to
happen in the preserve as well. Since the preserve is not highly monitored the riders would be able to take over the
preserve area. This would create a slippery slope that will lead to future problems managing the trails. Please keep the
preserve as a natural recreational area and do not change the natural experience we love.
Thank you for your consideration.
Laura De Jesus
5141 Silver Arrow Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310.666.3386
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: e-bikes
From: Karla Devine <kjdevine99@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 12:16 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: e‐bikes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To Whom It May Concern,
Please do not permit e-bikes in the nature preserve. We need to stop damaging the environment!
Karla Devine
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Attached letter opposing Class 1 E-Bikes in Preserves
From: Tracy Drake <tdrakehawk@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 5:36 PM
To: abdalkey@verizon.net
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; David Quadhamer <dquadhamer@yahoo.com>; Jazmin Rios <mjazminrios@pvsb‐
audubon.org>; Paul Blieden <bliedenp@gmail.com>; Vincent Lloyd <vincent@sabik.org>; tony baker
<tbake377@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Attached letter opposing Class 1 E‐Bikes in Preserves
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Thank you!
Tracy Drake
City of Torrance
On Oct 11, 2021, at 5:02 PM, Ann Dalkey <abdalkey@verizon.net> wrote:
Ann
Ann Dalkey
abdalkey@verizon.net
310‐540‐3090
<211011 Position Against Class 1 eBikes in PV Preserves.pdf>
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: E-Bikes
From: Zachary Ellison <zachary.b.ellison@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 9:35 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: E‐Bikes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear RPV City Council ‐
I have hiked in your reserves since 2011. Please do not allow e‐bikes into the reserve. They
will create unsafe conditions for other users, erode the trails and annoy the wildlife. Your
reserves are much too small and delicate to accommodate this activity. Why should I have
to dodge e‐bikes? Wait until one spooks someone’s horse!
Don’t do this seriously and give us back the parking on Crenshaw too. Thanks!
Best,
Zachary Ellison
Lawndale, CA
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Ebikes
From: Cheryl Frick <cfrick@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 9:46 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ebikes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Please do not allow Ebikes in the preserve.
Ebikes present greater danger to:
‐The safety of hikers
‐The equestrian community
‐The preservation of plants and animals.
Ebikes are heavier and faster than ordinary mountain bikes. This will cause more damage to trails, potentially fatal
consequences for wildlife and significant injury in the event of a collision.
I hike weekly with friends who are RPV residents and the wear and tear on the trails would be heart breaking if you
opened up the trails to ebikes. We’ve already seen dead baby rattlesnakes and other small animals the victims of
mountain bikes. Please don’t allow for any more destruction.
Thank you for your consideration.
Cheryl Frick
El Segundo
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: eBikes on nature preserves: Ordinance 650
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: ERIC GLASSY <efglassymd@mac.com>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 3:23 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: eBikes on nature preserves: Ordinance 650
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear RPV City Council,
I am writing to express my concerns about the approval of eBikes on nature trails.
You have received a number of concerns, I am sure.
I just want to add to them.
We are blessed with wonderful, preserved natural sanctuaries on the Peninsula.
These are meant to be shared and enjoyed.
But allowing bikes in general and eBikes in particular will put our resources at risk.
I hope you reconsider your current position and vote to not allow these recreational vehicles on our trails.
Respectfully,
Eric F. Glassy, MD
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: E bikes in the White Point Nature Preserve
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Katie Lozano
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 3:52 PM
To: pennygood33@gmail.com
Cc: 'CC' <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: E bikes in the White Point Nature Preserve
Hello Ms. Good,
Thank you for you email. I wanted to provide clarification that White Point Preserve is located in San Pedro. The area
that is being considered for class 1 e‐bike use is the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve located in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes. Please let me know if I can provide additional information.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation and Parks Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
katiel@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5267
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Penny Good <pennygood33@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 3:46 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: E bikes in the White Point Nature Preserve
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
> On Oct 11, 2021, at 3:07 PM, Penny Good <pennygood33@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Council Members. The White Point Nature Preserve has become a beautiful place for people of all ages, tastes
and economic situations to come and spend time,; Theres wild life, birds, native plants and people of all ages and levels
of mobility come. I’m in favor of bicyclists being able to travel through the preserve to go from east to west Paseo del
Mar because of the land slide but not just ride around on electric bicycles. I feel it contributes to erosion and disregard
for other people and the wonderful native plants that have been planted and wild life. Some bicyclists are very
considerate and even get off their bicycle for a pedestrian going in the opposite direction but some will just say beep
beep or nothing. The land is fragile and erosion happens with very little use. I feel electric bicycles in the White Point
2
Preserve contribute to injuries of pedestrians and wildlife and possibly pets and hope their use in the preserve is
discouraged. Thank you Penny Good
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Ebike use in nature preserve areas
From: Galen Heisey <galenheisey@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 7:00 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ebike use in nature preserve areas
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello, Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
I am an avid hiker in Palos Verdes nature preserve areas and I would like to register my strong disapproval for allowing
Ebikes on trails in the nature preserves for the following reasons:
1. Expected significant increase in erosion of trails due to the power‐assist nature of ebikes which will cause
tires/wheels to grind trail surfaces more significantly than hiking boots or horse shoes.
2. Increased risk of possibility of bikers running into hikers or horse riders due to speed of bikers, or riding so close
as to cause hikers/riders to have to dangerously move out of bikers travel path.
Please reconsider your recent decision to allow ebikes and let’s please keep these trails quiet and safe.
Thank you,
Galen Heisey
4929 Calle de Arboles
Torrance, CA 90505
C: 310‐918‐0583
Sent from Mail for Windows
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Electric bikes in the preserve
From: Judy Herman <wordznpix@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 4:23 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Electric bikes in the preserve
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Honorable members of the city council:
Electric bikes have their place, but it's not in a nature preserve. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes and
other government agencies at all levels, along with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
and concerned individuals, have devoted decades of time, money and sweat equity to setting aside a
space where the rare coastal sage habitat and threatened animals that need it to survive can endure.
Of course, people can enjoy exploring nature in the preserve, so long as they respect the plants and
animals that make it their home. Back in 2006-2008, the Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) Committee
met intensively to limit the number of trails and so maximize habitat in the preserve. It was an
arduous struggle, but they finally worked out a compromise among competing user groups: hikes,
equestrians and cyclists.
Now, the city is toying with adding motor vehicles in the form of electric bikes to the competing
interests. For now it's only a certain class of e-bikes, a restriction that seems difficult to communicate
to the public and impossible to enforce. Beware of the slippery slope.
And slopes are what attract many bikers to the preserve---the thrill of speeding downhill around
curves. I've narrowly escaped severe injury many times in close encounters with such bikers. E-bikes
may have a maximum speed of 20 to 28 miles per hour, but that's on level ground. Downhill they can
go much faster. The uphill assist allows e-bikers to conserve their strength and speed downhill many
more times than pedal bikers. Even a mountain biking blogger warns of the danger of e-bikers on
mountain bike trails (never mind mixed-use trails that include hikers and
equestrians): https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/2016/09/23/e-bikes-shouldnt-allowed-mtb-bike-
trails/. According to this biker, "E-bikers are going at speed, which can be addictive, making the riders
more reckless. More speed results in longer braking times, increasing accidents."
Please let the plants, animals and respectful visitors coexist safely without the danger of e-bikes.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Judy Herman
RPV resident
2
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Rescind: E-bikes in the Nature Preserve
Importance:High
From: Hunter Studios <2hunter@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 4:16 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Rescind: E‐bikes in the Nature Preserve
Importance: High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Council,
My family and I have deep concerns regarding the opening of our PVPLC Nature Preserve to E‐Bikes. Bicycles have
already caused enough damage to the trails (as well as off‐trail) and conflict with the purpose of Conservancy…which is
to promote and protect native habitat. Human recreation in any such preserve should be limited to foot traffic (and the
horses that are rather grandfathered in.) Some speeding bicyclists may practice safety in regards to hikers, but it is not
in the spirit of hikers in the Preserve communing with nature to need to be on vigilant standby to get out of the way of
someone on wheels. The City is inviting law suits by anyone injured on our public land by inviting this unsafe conflict of
use.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy is not and was not given status as sports park. There are many generous
donors and volunteers who are doing their best to build and maintain a true nature conservancy. We may find that
funds and volunteers disappear if we allow their sacrifices to be driven back to weeds and dirt.
We hope that you will rescind this ill‐advised decision , that was likely based on the louder voices of those with self‐
interested and/or commercial interest in changing this Nature Preserve into a bicycle thrill ride.
We/RPV have a legal responsibility and we need to uphold our commitments. A Land Conservancy isn’t a fictional
entity. It has defined parameters. I would suggest getting expert legal advice on this matter.
The Hunter Family
Portuguese Bend, RPV 90275
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: E-bikes in the nature preserves
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Joe Hyman <jhyman@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 4:45 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: E‐bikes in the nature preserves
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear RPV Council Members:
I am a Rancho Palos Resident, and I love riding my road bike on the scenic roads of Palos Verdes. However, I am strongly
opposed to permitting e‐bikes on the nature preserve. I think that battery powered and motor powered bikes should
not be allowed to spoil the natural beauty of these precious lands that have been entrusted to us.
I welcome my e‐bike friends to join me riding on the roads of Palos Verdes.
Respectfully,
Joseph Hyman
28212 Ella Rd
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Sent from my iPhone
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Upcoming decision on E-bikes in RPV
From: cjingram <cjingram@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 12:02 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Upcoming decision on E‐bikes in RPV
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
City Council Members,
I appreciate that your group is considering allowing E‐bike usage in our recreational areas. I have lived and hiked,
biked in the PV area for the last 40 years and treasure the time that my dog and I have been able to enjoy it. I am now
71 years old and suffer from chronic peripheral neuropathy that qualifies me for a disabled persons parking permit and
recently bought an E bike so that I could continue to use human powered (now with a level of assist if necessary) bike
travel to enjoy our beautiful area. I have previously hiked in areas that allow bicycles on the hillside trails. The use of
any bicycle on narrow trails with hikers and other bikes requires a good amount of courtesy and sense. I have hiked
throughout California since a teenager. As a hiker I don’t mind sharing a trail with all that respect what a trail is suitable
for and with those who can share it a safe manner. If the use of an E bike requires a ADA pass I would welcome it if it
keeps the trails open as they once were. I hope your group is able to provide an equitable solution that respects the use
of our areas by senior citizens and those not as able as they once were. I hope that an open hearted attitude will
prevail.
Thank you,
Clay Ingram
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
From: Cheryl Kohr <ckohr@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 10:28 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello, Councilmembers,
These valued trails should be for walking and hiking only. E‐bikes can damage the habitat and can be a safety
hazard to pedestrians, as well as a distraction from the natural environment. I urge you to prohibit e‐bikes and
any other motorized vehicles on the nature preserve trails. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards,
Cheryl Kohr
Palos Verdes Estates
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Electric bikes in Preserve.
From: Bill Lavoie <hikerbill67@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 4:42 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Electric bikes in Preserve.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Bill Lavoie <hikerbill67@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 4:33 PM
Subject: Electric bikes in Preserve.
To: <cc@rpv.gov>
Dear City Council.
I think that allowing E Bikes in the preserve is a really bad idea. Think of the impact on the animals and plants. Think of
the impact on the trails. And let's think about the safety of hikers and horseback riders when these bikes come zooming
down the trails. What are these bikes going to do to the environment? Has anyone done an environmental impact
report as to the introduction of these bikes to the environment?
And how are you going to police only level one bikes in the Preserve?
And what happens if someone is seriously injured because the city allowed these bikes in the Preserve.
Please don't allow these bikes to destroy our Preserve.
William Lavoie, ViceChair, PVSB Sierra Club
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Motorized mountain bike in the preserves
From: Janice Ling <jhm_ling@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 10:57 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Motorized mountain bike in the preserves
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear RPV council members,
I am writing in regards to the permission of motorized mountain bike on preserve trails.
My husband and I are regular trail hikers, as well as regular participants in group hiking with Sierra Club. We
have always felt very lucky to live in such a beautiful part of California. In the 20+ years of residency in this
idyllic city, we are grateful to the city of RPV for doing a fantastic job in managing and preserving the land, the
habitats and views.
Recently, I am made aware of the fact that motorized mountain biking may be allowed on trails in the
preserves. We have run into mountain bikers on trails once in a while. Most of them are considerate in sharing
the space, and making complete stops when necessary. However, when the bikes are motorized going at a
much faster speed, I have concerns about safety for both the hikers and bikers as maneuvering space on
narrow rugged terrain is trickier.
I am sure the council is aware of the fact that motorized bikes are not allowed on the strands, a flat but often
crowded space. The Beach cities have taken safety concerns of the users seriously. We hope the RPV city
council will do the same and vote down the permission of motorized bikes on preserve trails.
As always, we appreciate all the good work you do for the city.
Sincerely,
Janice Ling
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Del Cerra area parking
From: Stanley Mosler <stanley.mosler@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 9:53 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Del Cerra area parking
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I have been a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes for some 50 years. Before retiring as a CPA, Marilyn Ryan was a
client. For the past 6 years, I have ended my Saturday morning 11-mile hike by going uphill on the Burma Road
trail. I have never observed any of the disruptive events that have been attributed to hikers. My impression of
the shuttle service and parking restrictions that have consumed so much of the Council’s time is that the sole
purpose was to keep “outsiders” away. My observation of the hikers is that most of them are seeking cheap
recreation—hiking is free. I suggest that the City facilitate hikers, rather than discourage them. I read some time
ago that the City generates some 80% of its parking revenue fees from the Del Cerra area—Crenshaw south of
Crest Road. Parking should be permitted on both sides of Crenshaw south of Crest Road, as it is north of Crest
Road. Restrictions on the row of parking spaces at a Park should also be eliminated. Offer the few residents
who are negatively impacted by living adjacent to a public park the alternative of a settlement under eminent
domain.
Sent from Mail for Windows
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Do NOT allow e-bikes in nature preserve
From: Kendra North <kendragnorth@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 11:57 AM
To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Do NOT allow e‐bikes in nature preserve
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I just learned the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council voted to allow electric bikes in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. This
would be a disaster. We must protect habitat, wildlife and human visitors. Please do not allow e‐bikes in the nature
preserve.
Thank you,
Kendra North
4 Silverleaf Dr, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
310.977.3935
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Hazards of e-bikes in the PV nature preserve
From: Parsons, Joseph D [US] (SP) <joe.parsons@ngc.com>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 2:33 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Gayle Parsons <gayle.parsons@icloud.com>
Subject: Hazards of e‐bikes in the PV nature preserve
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Are you guys crazy? An e‐bike going oh‐30 mph, hitting a person standing on the trail will likely knock that person off the
trail and send him tumbling into a ravine. Death is not an unlikely scenario.
Joseph Parsons, hiker.
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: E-Bikes in Nature Preserve
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Julie Profet <julieprofet@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 1:31 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: E‐Bikes in Nature Preserve
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Council Members,
I'm a frequent hiker on the beautiful trails of the nature preserve. In the past few years, the trails have become more
crowded with mountain bikes. Some of the paths are too narrow for both hikers and bikers.
There have been some close encounters with mountain bikes, and now we have e‐bikes too. Please, for everyone's
safety draw the line at e‐bikes, or next it may be motocross riding ?
Keep our citizens safe.
Thank you,
Julie Profet.
PV/SB Audubon seeks to preserve indigenous flora and fauna, especially that of our local area, and provide educational
services to the region’s communities with respect to birds, wildlife, ecology and conservation.
PV/SB Audubon is a Federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
October 11, 2021
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Letter Opposing Class 1 E-Bikes on Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Trails
Mayor, Councilpersons, and Staff of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes;
The Palos Verdes / South Bay Audubon Chapter strenuously opposes allowing Class 1 E-Bikes in the Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve. There are a number of reasons for our position.
1. The Class 1 E-Bikes represent a collision danger to hikers and other cyclists. These bikes have a top
speed of 20 mph yet lack speedometers. This results in faster travel than in non-motorized bikes, even
when ridden uphill. Currently these bikes pose a problem on city streets as riders ignore speed limits
while riding on sidewalks or through intersections.
2. These bikes have larger tires than non-motorized bikes that will result I greater erosion to the trails,
especially in the steeper, curved portions of the trails.
3. Wildlife will suffer from trail erosion and the potential greater speeds of E-Bikes. Wildlife will hide more
thereby degrading the hiking experience.
4. Conflict between hikers and bicyclists will be greater as the E-Bikes move more quickly on the trails
while potentially moving faster and/or on non-bicycle trails.
5. Control of bicyclists’ behavior is a challenge that will only be aggravated through the introduction of
E-Bikes.
6. Entry signage specifically prohibits any form of motorized travel. An E-Bike’s electric motor is no
different than an electric car’s motor. How can this substantive change be rationalized in the Preserves?
Does CEQA apply?
7. Finally, many of our members have hiked the Preserve trails and have encountered electronic motorized
transport, such as the single wheel hoverboards. The riders move faster than hikers as their presence
detracts from the nature found within the preserves, not to mention collision potential.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a letter in opposition of this ill-considered move.
Sincerely,
David Quadhamer
President
PO Box 2582, Palos Verdes, CA 90274
info@pvsb-audubon.org www.pvsb-audubon.org
Palos Verdes / South Bay Audubon
PV/SB Audubon seeks to preserve indigenous flora and fauna, especially that of our local area, and provide educational
services to the region’s communities with respect to birds, wildlife, ecology and conservation.
PV/SB Audubon is a Federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Sierra Club comments on E-bike policy in Palos Verdes Preserve
Attachments:SierraClub_Ebikes_letter_RPV_CC.pdf
From: Al Sattler <alsattler@igc.org>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 6:21 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Sierra Club comments on E‐bike policy in Palos Verdes Preserve
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Attached and inline below are Sierra Club comments on E-bike policy in the Palos Verdes Preserve
October 11, 2021
By email to cc@rpvca.gov
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council:
The Sierra Club strongly opposes the use of E-bikes in the Palos Verdes Preserve.
E-bikes would increase danger to hikers, equestrians, wildlife and plants, even more than present
mountain bikes. They would increase widening of trails, which would mean less area for native
plants, less natural habitat. More small animals would be killed, run over by speeding bicycles. More
hikers and equestrians would avoid the Preserve, fearful of their personal safety.
E-bikes are heavier than ordinary mountain bikes, which means that they would cause more damage
to trails, and would cause more injury to anybody they hit. They also can go fast more easily than
unpowered mountain bikes, which increases the chance that they would surprise hikers, equestrians,
and wildlife, with risk to all. The electric motors for Class 1 E-bikes can boost them up to 20 miles per
hour. This is much too fast for safety on our trails.
2
E-bikes would allow riders to power ride uphill faster, with less fatigue. This would allow an E-bike
rider to do more downhill runs, with more opportunities to collide with hikers, equestrians, wildlife, or
even other bicyclists, as well as causing more wear and tear of the trails. Fast downhill runs are the
time when mountain bikes are most dangerous.
The Sierra Club has consistently opposed the use of bicycles in the Palos Verdes Preserve because
of their danger to hikers and equestrians, and impact on wildlife and native plants. E-bikes would be
worse.
From more than about ten yards, it can be difficult for a ranger to tell which type of E-bike is being
ridden except by looking at the label on the bike, so more powerful Class 3 E-bikes, capable of 28
miles per hour, would certainly be ridden as well as Class 1 E-bikes.
We emphatically favor the use of E-bikes for street use instead cars. E-bikes provide a vital
transportation alternative for short term trips, running errands or commuting to work. We would
encourage the installation of bike racks at the preserve trail heads, so people can ride E-bikes to the
trailhead, lock their bikes, and then hike from there. This would lead to less vehicle traffic and fewer
parking issues on Crenshaw.
There was absolutely no notice on the City Council Agenda for October 5, 2021, that a vote would be
taken to allow E-bikes in the Preserve, so you only heard from E-bike supporters. The previous City
Council action needs to be reconsidered carefully.
Thank you for your consideration.
/s
Marcia Cook
Chair
3
Palos Verdes- South Bay Group / Angeles Chapter
P. O. Box 2464 , Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274
October 11, 2021
By email to cc@rpvca.gov
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council:
The Sierra Club strongly opposes the use of E-bikes in the Palos Verdes Preserve.
E-bikes would increase danger to hikers, equestrians, wildlife and plants, even more than present mountain
bikes. They would increase widening of trails, which would mean less area for native plants, less natural
habitat. More small animals would be killed, run over by speeding bicycles. More hikers and equestrians
would avoid the Preserve, fearful of their personal safety.
E-bikes are heavier than ordinary mountain bikes, which means that they would cause more damage to
trails, and would cause more injury to anybody they hit. They also can go fast more easily than unpowered
mountain bikes, which increases the chance that they would surprise hikers, equestrians, and wildlife, with
risk to all. The electric motors for Class 1 E-bikes can boost them up to 20 miles per hour. This is much too
fast for safety on our trails.
E-bikes would allow riders to power ride uphill faster, with less fatigue. This would allow an E-bike rider to
do more downhill runs, with more opportunities to collide with hikers, equestrians, wildlife, or even other
bicyclists, as well as causing more wear and tear of the trails. Fast downhill runs are the time when
mountain bikes are most dangerous.
The Sierra Club has consistently opposed the use of bicycles in the Palos Verdes Preserve because of their
danger to hikers and equestrians, and impact on wildlife and native plants. E-bikes would be worse.
From more than about ten yards, it can be difficult for a ranger to tell which type of E-bike is being ridden
except by looking at the label on the bike, so more powerful Class 3 E-bikes, capable of 28 miles per hour,
would certainly be ridden as well as Class 1 E-bikes.
We emphatically favor the use of E-bikes for street use instead cars. E-bikes provide a vital transportation
alternative for short term trips, running errands or commuting to work. We would encourage the installation
of bike racks at the preserve trail heads, so people can ride E-bikes to the trailhead, lock their bikes, and
then hike from there. This would lead to less vehicle traffic and fewer parking issues on Crenshaw.
There was absolutely no notice on the City Council Agenda for October 5, 2021, that a vote would be taken
to allow E-bikes in the Preserve, so you only heard from E-bike supporters. The previous City Council
action needs to be reconsidered carefully.
Thank you for your consideration.
/s
Marcia Cook
Chair
~l:jSIERRA
¥-'CLUB
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Reconsidering the proposed Amendments to Preserve Regulations, tentatively October 19, 2021
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 4:49 PM
To: Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>;
Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>; claire.pbca@gmail.com
<claire.pbca@gmail.com>; golisapv@gmail.com <golisapv@gmail.com>
Subject: Reconsidering the proposed Amendments to Preserve Regulations, tentatively October 19, 2021
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Before you commit to the spending of more money on the criminalization of more activities and the
requisite costs of enforcement and penalty extraction, I urge you to seat a citizen task force charged
with drafting a comprehensive design of the Preserve Theme Park for scrutiny along the lines of a
private development. (The PUMP Committee gave it a start.)
To work concurrently, I urge you to create and populate an Infrastructure and Activities Commission
to sort out the "resource documents" which are currently in affect, hear amendments to them and
facilitate keeping them up-to-date as in maintaining them as "living documents". (To start with, they
could take over the role of the former Rec.& Parks Committee to review proposals to add trails to the
Trails Network Plan.)
That is the short version. I hope you can influence the Agenda Report.
Do you not realize that no matter how much it gets referred or how much money (cash and Staff
Time) gets thrown at it, there still is no such thing as the PV Preserve? Some boundaries have not
been defined. Some Conservation Easements have not been recorded. We still do not have the
California Wildlife Agency's Permit to implement the NCCP/HCP. The Preserve Theme Park, as a
whole, has not yet been designed and reviewed for compatibility with the General Plan's Circulation
Element, neighborhood compatibility, the underlying infrastructure etc. The Ladera Linda Project's
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process was very narrowly focused and as a result, many of these
concerns have not been mitigated and continue to be concerns, too.
This makes it all the more onerous that Staff feels compelled to introduce expanded restrictions on
human behavior because of the preserve. It is a fact that "fun" is not "safe". Risk-taking is a major
part of what makes something fun. One of the "Ten pretty good Rules" that an old TRW Engineer
was willing to share with me is… SEVEN - If you want a new idea, read an old book. Here is a quote
from one first published in 1944. "Bureaucracy" -- Ludwig Von Mises.
"Many doctors describe the ways in which their fellow citizens spend their money is utterly
foolish and opposed to their real needs. People, they say, should change their diet, restrict their
2
consumption of intoxicating beverages and tobacco, and employ their leisure time in a more
reasonable manner. These doctors are probably right. But it is not the task of government to
improve the behavior of its "subjects". Neither is it the task of businessmen. They are not the
guardians of their customers. If the public prefers hard to soft drinks, the entrepreneurs have to
yield to these wishes. He who wants to reform his countrymen must take recourse to
persuasion. This alone is the democratic way of bringing about changes. If a man fails in his
endeavors to convince other people of the soundness of his ideas, he should blame his own
disabilities. He should not ask for a law, that is, for compulsion and coercion by the police."
People recreate for fun. When changing a land use, one must consider both the positive and the
negative consequences. When said change in land use requires the modification of human behavior,
the craft of persuasion comes into play. Making the change physically comfortable always wins over
coercion. Being thoughtful of Mother Nature is essential.
You have each been exposed to the "tread lightly protocol". For whatever reason, Staff has chosen
not to follow it and you have gone along with it. (Engineering, then Education then, Enforcement.) I
continue to question why. My focus is on trails however, a lot more of our quality of life is being
negatively impacted by this "putting the cart before the horse" macro-management of our assets and
resources. Here is another quote which applies to pretty much every sort of human activity even
though the observation is specific to trails as provided to the RPV City Council in 2013 by a PVPLC
Trail Crew Leader…
"80% of user problems are solved by fixing the trails." -- Karl Knapp, Trails and Roadway
Superintendent over 1.5 million acres California State land.*
Katie Lozano is not in a position to advise Public Works as to how to modify/maintain existing trails in
relation to what may become a permitted use in the preserve. (See Ramzi's statement, second to last
in the following email chain.) It is short-sighted to prohibit anything that could be enjoyed with
minimal user conflicts if the appropriate infrastructure was provided. The preserve's stakeholders
have not been adequately consulted.
Apparently, I can't give up on the future face of RPV. …S 310-377-8761
* See more in late correspondence, April 2, 2013, RPV City Council Agenda Item 3, page 39.
Subject: In search of a well designed and a well maintained City
Date: 10/6/2021 2:44:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: terit@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Teri,
To help narrow the searches, my second to last paragraph is the one I really hope you can get to
understand so that you can provide me with a clear, official and quotable answer to the ultimate
question… How does anyone know which is a "responsive document"?
I have spent 40 years helping the City improve upon and implement the City's Trails Network
Plan/CTP/CBP. Up until 20 years ago, it was a great success. All of my questions and requests are
3
one big effort to find out which "interpretations" are guiding Staff's suspension of infrastructure
planning and maintenance.
My mission is to get Ramzi's people to function as though they knew which roadsides, street
crossings, trails and pathways are in need of routine inspection, repair and maintenance. Rec.&
Parks doesn't know.
Interpretation Number One appears to be… Do not communicate with Sunshine. I had to ask the
Mayor to ask the City Attorney to rule on access to the "interpretations" as agreed upon between the
City's Contract Officer (Ara Mihranian at the time) and Alta Planning's Project Manager at the
mandatory Kick-Off Meeting and then passed on to the City's new Contract Officer (Cory Linder)
when the contract was extended. Katie's list is all I have been able to get.
Notice that the most critical document of all is not on Katie's list. Make this one my PRR No. 1.
The production of this one document you claim has been approved per my REQUEST FOR STAFF
TIME (neither box is checked on the form you returned to me), is the basis for anyone and everyone
to agree on what Public Works is supposed to base their priorities and budgeting upon. Without a
CTP level description of each and every "approved" trail, nobody is authorized to preserve and
enhance them. That includes "trailhead amenities".
I am waiting for Council to see the TRAILS DEVELOPMENT / MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July
4, 2012 or, Ara's draft substitute. Requested September 10, 2021.
You wrote me that the Staff Time was approved but our Deputy City Manager did not produce either
one for a Council decision on September 21, 2021 in relation to the Council's Goals 4a and
12a. There is no mention of it on Council's October 5 agenda. Is a City Council approved insertion
into the Trails Network Plan a "resource document" or not? Does my request for a decision get to just
fade away?
I am copying you on my requests to Katie for access to the specific documents on her Alta list. You
are already involved with this one. Do we need to call it my PRR no. 2 or does Katie's title suffice?
Rancho Palos Verdes Naming Policy
I am waiting for Council to see what Ara meant by the Trails and Landmarks Naming policy
which Ara told the Council, "Staff was following", so that the Task Force's suggestion did not
need to be added to the TNP Update. Requested September 26, 2021.
I have sent Katie a request for:
California Coastal Trail Plan
I am waiting for everyone to know what they are supposed to be referencing at the beginning
of processing any proposal in the Coastal Zone.
I will keep trying to work with Katie to be able identify and locate the rest of the documents on her
list. I don't expect them to be as difficult to locate as Ara's interpretations from 2012.
The rest of my questions to various Staff Members will land in your email box as separate email
chains if I have not received an acknowledgement in one week. Who keeps track of customer
satisfaction statistics? (Count that as a rhetorical question.)
The only topic of this email is the matter of "responsive documents", "resource documents" and
"resource records". Which is the correct term or, do each of them mean something different? Please
provide me with a clear, official and quotable answer to the ultimate question… How does anyone
4
know which is a "responsive document" (your term) a resource document (Katie's term)
and/or a "responsive record" (Ramzi's term)? Being able to identify what is a responsive
document and what is not, continues to be the primary block in communications and holistic
solutions decision-making around here. It really doesn't matter that I can find a document if
nobody has been directed to use it.
Let's make an end to this particular search. …S
Subject: Re: One document at a time request. Posted PRR
Date: 10/3/2021 4:12:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: TeriT@rpvca.gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Cc: KatieL@rpvca.gov, krukavina@rpvca.gov, rawwad@rpvca.gov, CityClerk@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Sunshine,
I agree with your last paragraph, yes… please spell out each of the 5 requests you seek
and I will forward them in to staff and track them in a timely manner.
If you could be as specific as possible that will really help narrow the search.
Thank you.
Subject: Re: One document at a time request. Posted PRR
Date: 10/2/2021 12:18:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: TeriT@rpvca.gov
Cc: KatieL@rpvca.gov, krukavina@rpvca.gov, rawwad@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Teri,
You are the one who has only one PRR posted from me in the most recent Weekly City Manager's
Report. I am now waiting for five documents. You mentioned "trail narrative" and I do not believe
that any have been drafted since the Task Force submitted samples (2004) pending the Council's
review of the Open Space Subcommittee's suggestions for making the TNP more user-friendly for
Staff. So, take whatever you meant by "trail narrative" off the list.
I really don't expect Katie to be able to send me any information about what "a Geologist is reviewing"
in relation to the Garden Trail. She has not sent me anything in response to similar requests which
were inspired by trail closure notices.
I am waiting for Council to see the TRAILS DEVELOPMENT / MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July 4,
2012 or, Ara's draft substitute. Requested September 10, 2021.
I am waiting for Council to see what Ara meant by the Trails and Landmarks Naming policy which Ara
told the Council, "Staff was following", so that the Task Force's suggestion did not need to be added
to the TNP Update. Requested September 26, 2021.
I am happy to wait until October 11, 2021 to see the Staff Report which supports Staff's
Recommendation for whatever action that keeps the Agreement with Ethics Point in place.
5
I should think that Tran would be able to send me the page from the current Budget which shows
what we have or expect to pay, Ethics Point this Fiscal Year. Have you included that in what you
expect to get to me by October 11?
The City Clerk's Office is the only source of "transparency" this City has to offer. The fact That I have
to ask you for information which Staff should be providing to Council is most disconcerting. The fact
that "resource documents" are a mystery and that locating approved Plans by title in the City's web
site is extremely difficult, rather explains why Staff does not reference them when appropriate. Katie's
list is as non-specific as your PRR title. (Requesting Rancho Palos Verdes Naming Policy and trail
narrative.) We are going to have to go through this exercise to determine how to look up and
examine what is the actual document on file for each of Katie's listed document titles. The point is
that in addition to Alta needing them for the "TNP Update", Staff needs to be implementing them,
now. How does anyone know which is a "resource document"?
My objective is to help Staff and the Council to function more efficiently. It is not to suck up your
time. Toward that end, if there is anything you can suggest that I can do differently, please
explain. Answer me that one and I will know whether or not I need to separate each document into a
separate email chain. Like I said, I am getting dizzy and questions are going
unanswered. TNX. …S
Subject: RE: Search for a list of current RPV Plans. City Council Goals Workshop
Date: 2/23/2021 11:15:52 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: TeriT@rpvca.gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello Sunshine,
Please see my responses below.
Teri
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2021 2:23 PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Search for a list of current RPV Plans. City Council Goals Workshop
Hi Teri,
Lets keep the rest of this conversation on the same Subject line topic. I received the following from
Enyssa and have to say that I have been rendered speechless. Well, for a while. The most important
part of my Public Records Request was to establish an official list of the Plans which Staff is
supposed to be using to direct their Budget Requests, initiate projects, prioritize their work efforts and
coordinate options with the public. Apparently, these are collectively called "responsive records" or
"responsive documents". I didn't know that. Since Staff is not following the directions in the
responsive documents which I am familiar with and I am aware that there are more, my request is
twofold.
(1) How does Staff know how to locate a document when it is referenced, by title, in another one?
If for example, I write a Staff report referencing a particular Ordinance, I would pull that ordinance
from our Laserfiche database.
6
(2) How do I get a list of all the "Plans" which Staff is supposed to be proactively implementing as in
requesting funding in the five-year Budget Model?
The City does not have document(s) responsive to this request. As you know, Staff works on projects
and brings reports/contracts to the City Council for consideration.
(5) how can I view a particular one? For instance, how do I look up the DocumentCenter number for
the recently updated Hazard Mitigation Plan?
I think I have mentioned and IT staff has further noted, it is best to search for a document on our
website by its name or subject. Document numbers are temporary and are not a viable way to search
for the document. In your example, I would recommend going to the search bar in the far right of the
City’s website, type in your search term and find your document in that manner. You should get a list
of documents in a drop down menu from which to make your selection.
Is the Council Policies list considered a "responsive document"? My partial list was limited to
documents which are titled "Plan" or "Log".
The City Council Polices are not a list. Rather they are sets of policies adopted by the City Council
over the years. My apologies but perhaps I do not understand this question.
My Public Records Request is not complete. Which "responsive documents" are officially, currently
in affect and how do I look up each particular one starting at the www.rpvca.gov home page?
I believe that staff sent you links (where easier to download if the file was too large) and/ or electronic
documents based on the list of items you requested below. If you did not receive a “log or plan” it is
because that document does not exist.
Once I have this list, I can work on getting answers to my other questions. Sorry we didn't get this
completed in time to suggest adding, getting and keeping all of these documents up to date to the
Council's Strategic Action Plan at the February 22 Workshop. One would like to think that this is SOP
but, it is clearly not. Have you an official definition of what action/procedure maintaining a document
as a "living document" is supposed to produce?
We have so many new Staff Members who do not have access to so many responsive documents
that a lot of, to be Staff initiated, projects are not considered in prioritizing the Budget. (See email
from Ramzi Awwad.)
I hope this produces a clear request. Which "responsive documents" are officially, currently in
affect (Title, effective date, DocumentCenter/View????) and how do I look up each particular
one starting at the www.rpvca.gov home page?
Staff, whether new or veterans, is aware of how to search and retrieve documents for projects they
are working on. . It is understandable that a newer employee may need a little bit of time to
familiarize themselves with a project and get up to speed, but I assure you, Staff is very well versed
in how to find documents.
I am always ready to assist in any way to get information out, please let me know how I can help you.
Thank you
Teri
Bless you Madam Chief Detective. …S
Subject: Pending PRA
Date: 2/20/2021 11:18:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: TeriT@rpvca.gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello Sunshine,
I am reaching out to you in the hopes you can clarify what PRA is outstanding.
Could you let me know what information you are still waiting for?
7
Thank you
Teri
Subject: Policy - 49
Date: 2/17/2021 9:56:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: EnyssaM@rpvca.gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Cc: CityClerk@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Sunshine,
Please see attached policy -49.
Thanks,
Enyssa Momoli
Administrative Assistant
Subject: RE: A more specific response to the Satisfaction Survey
Date: 2/1/2021 5:22:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: EnyssaM@rpvca.gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Cc: CityClerk@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello Sunshine,
Please see link down below for responsive documents to your public records request. This
will complete your request.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office
at cityclerk@rpvca.gov or (310)544-5217.
https://rpvcagov.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/Equ8U2ltxpxJlnAlUong7YIBllsZURszHGDCviUY5iFzUg?e=TZB
Cqy
Thanks,
Enyssa Momoli
Administrative Assistant
City Clerk’s Office
310.544.5217
Subject: Re: Search for a list of current RPV Plans
Date: 1/22/2021 10:03:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: TeriT@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Teri,
8
Thank you for starting the search. The most important thing about question (2) is which plans are
missing from my list. I don't recall the specific titles but, I know that the City is committed to plans
about clean water run-off, greenhouse gas emissions etc.
Trusting that you can come up with a complete list of currently authorized Council Directives by
February 1, 2021, I will be delighted for Staff to know the answer to my question (1).
Actually, my questions (3), (4) and (5) are questions I have been asking, literally, for years. Nobody
can accept my offers of historical interpretation while I can't find anyone who has actually read the
Plans. My questions (6) and (7) are more about how the public can become a part of taking care of
City business without becoming frustrated and cranky, like me. These are not Public Records
Requests.
If you can provide me with official answers to my questions (2) and (5), I can facilitate an informed
public. Wouldn't it be nice if there was less "late correspondence" and more requests to speak in
favor of a Recommendation?
It is like the old truism… You can give a horse water but you can't make him drink. It will be so nice
when I can direct Staff to the appropriate record even if they won't necessarily act on it. That is why it
is so important that we all know which are the currently in effect Plans and how we all get to know
when one is amended. "Update" and "living document" as processes, have not been defined.
Thank you for working on giving me a place to start. …S
Subject: RE: Search for a list of current RPV Plans
Date: 1/21/2021 1:10:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: TeriT@rpvca.gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello Sunshine-
I have asked staff to begin compiling the documents you referenced and we will address
your questions collectively on or before February 1st, as I will calendar this as a public
records request.
Thank you.
Teri
Subject: Search for a list of current RPV Plans
Date: 1/20/2021 1:15:37 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: terit@rpvca.gov
Cc: kbanales@rpvca.gov, lbuchwald@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details) Subject: Search for a list of current RPV Plans
Hi Teri,
These are Public Records, right? I am finding that a lot of Agenda Reports and Council Approved
Plans refer to other Council Approved Plans. I am also aware of the City's Archives
at rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/ four numbers. If one does a search on the City's web site for a
specifically referenced document title one ordinarily gets something over 1000 "suggestions". I have
also been informed that once one discovers the four Document Center numbers for a particular
document, one should not trust that number for future reference.
9
I am aware of:
General Plan (including Official Land Use Map)
Coastal Specific Plan
Parks Master Plan
Trails Network Plan
Coastal Vision Plan
Preserve Public Use Master Plan
Wildfire Management Plan
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Capital Improvements Plan
Natural Communities Conservation Plan
Log of General Plan Amendments
Log of Zoning Map Amendments
I know there are a few more which means that there are more which I am not aware of. I have
several questions which relate how these documents are maintained and how they can be
viewed. The answers may explain why Staff does not implement them and therefore, maybe
something can be done to encourage more familiarity. Once again, if you don't know any of the
answers, please tell me who should so that I can communicate directly.
I take it that there is no longer a set of paper copies of these plans in the Lobby for public
reference. (1) How does Staff know how to locate a document when it is referenced, by title, in
another one?
(2) How do I get a list of all the "Plans" which Staff is supposed to be proactively implementing as in
requesting funding in the five-year Budget Model? (3) I have no clue as to how somebody verifies
that the ongoing designs are funded.
I have a notion of what it means to maintain a document as a "living" document. For instance, when
some action which is directed in a Plan is accomplished, the primary document is to be amended to
reflect the current status. Some plans specify a particular periodic review/update. Others do
not. (4) Is there some particular Staff Position who is responsible for collecting these actions and
producing/inserting the revised page(s)?
This leads me back around to once I have a list of all the current Plans, (5) how can I view a particular
one? For instance, how do I look up the DocumentCenter number for the recently updated Hazard
Mitigation Plan?
My really big question is (6) who do I complain to when some directive in some Plan is not
initiated/budgeted in a timely fashion?
Thank you, again, for functioning as the City's "Lead Detective". (7) How's progress on getting the
City to designate someone as something like a Director of Community Services?
Happy New Year. …S
From: Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 8:59 AM
To: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
10
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: A more specific response to the Satisfaction Survey
Hello Sunshine,
I am writing to respond to your Public Records Act request for who is working with the
Public Works Department to assure that the on-going maintenance of existing trails and
unpaved roadsides are funded and not deferred. There are no responsive records to your
request; which is to say that we do not have any records that contain information about
your question.
To help answer your question, I can explain how the operating budget (which funds
maintenance work) is developed. Each year, Public Works staff coordinate with
Recreation and Parks staff to identify trails-related work that should be considered for the
upcoming year. Costs for elements of that work are then estimated. Finally, the work is
prioritized and constrained against the overall budget and other competing interests
across Public Works to arrive at a budget recommendation for Council’s approval.
I hope that helps answer your question.
Sincerely,
Ramzi Awwad
Deputy Director of Public Works
Subject: Amendments to Preserve Regulations
Date: 10/6/2021 11:05:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: listserv@civicplus.com
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
On October 5, 2021, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 650 to:
o Repeal and replace Chapter 12.16.020 to allow class 1 e-bikes in the Preserve
o Repeal and replace Chapter 12.16.010 to strengthen regulations to protect public facilities from
damage/vandalism
o Repeal and replace Chapter 12.16.045 to prevent flight of certain aircraft (paragliders, parasails, etc.) over
City property
o Add Chapter 12.16.170 to regulate vending, commercial services, and industrial activity in parks, preserve,
beaches, and recreational facilities
o Rename Chapter 12.16 of the Municipal Code (Add the word, preserve.)
Click here to view the staff report.
The City will hold a virtual Quarterly Preserve Public Forum on October 13 at 6 p.m. to share information and
solicit feedback on Preserve operations and projects, including the proposed revisions to the Municipal
Code. The agenda will be distributed later this week. Please use the link below to access additional information:
11
https://www.rpvca.gov/705/Quarterly-Public-Forum-Meetings
Ordinance 650 will be considered for adoption by the City Council at the October 19, 2021 City Council meeting. For
instructions on how to participate, please use the link below:
https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17234/Public-Participation-Form-Lead-In-Page
For additional information, please contact Senior Analyst Katie Lozano at trails@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
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Ebikes should not be allowed on trails in Portuguese Bend
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Nan Waldman <nan@nanwaldman.com>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 11:19 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ebikes should not be allowed on trails in Portuguese Bend
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I strongly oppose the use of e‐bikes on hiking trails. As someone with both hips replaced, I would fear for my balance,
safety, and health if I were to have to share the path with an e‐bike moving at 20mph. I need to use hiking trails to
exercise and to rehab my hips.
Also, use of e‐bikes degrades the trails. They should not be allowed where terrain is fragile —structural support of the
land will fail when used by e‐bikes making deep ruts and tracks in it. With social media, I fear the numbers of e‐bike
users would quickly overwhelm the fragile ecosystem. Once it rains, the ruts become rivulets and cause erosion.
There are too few open spaces and places for hiking in LA County Pedestrians with disabilities should not have to fear
being crashed into by motorized vehicles. Please do not allow e‐bikes on hiking trails.
Thank you,
Nan Waldman
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: E-bikes
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: MindyWebster <mindymwebster78@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 8:07 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: E‐bikes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello!
Please don’t allow electric bikes on our walking and nature paths. It would be incredibly dangerous near pedestrians and
it would cause significant wear and tear on the trails itself.
Please consider banning them on. They are dangerous enough on the streets.
Thank you,
Mindy webster
RPV resident
Sent from my iPhone
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: Please no ebikes
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: nancy winters <newinters@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 2:55 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Please no ebikes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello,
I witness close calls with ebikes and pedestrians every day on the strand bike path, even though they are supposedly
not allowed in electric mode. Last month ambulances came twice after ebikes hit pedestrians on the strand. If they
don’t allow them on a concrete bike path, why would you consider them in a nature preserve?! Makes no sense to me…
Nancy Winters
PV Sierra Club member
1
Katie Lozano
Subject:FW: E-Bikes Usage in the Nature Preserves
From: Edward Wong <eywong128@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 10:13 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: E‐Bikes Usage in the Nature Preserves
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hi,
My name is Edward Wong. I live at 4746 Lone Valley Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes.
I am writing about the proposed usage of electric bicycles in the Nature Preserves. I do not think that electric
bicycle usage in the preserve will keep the beneficial in preservation of the open spaces. Since the preserves
have gotten so much more popularity with public, the addition of electric bicycles will be much like adding
fossil fueled motorcycles ( which are currently not allowed) as authorized in the preserves.
‐‐‐Ed