RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_11_07_F_Medawar_Claim_Against_The_CityCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJEGT:
REVIEWED:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY CO~,L MEMBERS
CARLA MORREALE,CITY CLER
NOVEMBER 7,2012
CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY BY CHERI~MEDAWAR
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER"QY--
RECOMMENDATION
Reject the claim and direct staff to notify the claimant.
BACKGROUND
The claimant alleges that the City is guilty of selective code enforcement and retaliatory
actions against the claimant based on an email exchange with City staff.
The City's Claims Administrator,Carl Warren and Company,has reviewed the claim
and advised the City to refer the claim to the City Attorney for handling.City Attorney
Lynch has reviewed the claim,the genesis of which is a neighbor dispute,and directed
staff to submit it to the City Council.The City Attorney recommends that the claim be
rejected.
Attachment:
Claim
cc:Richard T.Ferko,Claimant's Attorney
F-1
ESERVE FOR FILING STAMP
SEP 28 20121
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
CLAIM NO..;.10'cSl.-0 1
I~
~el
c.l,.p
RECEIVED C,~k,;'
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Pl.fx".
5'~
INSTRUCTIONS
1.Claims for death,injury to person or to personal property must be filed not
later than six months after the occurrence.(Gov.Code Sec.911.2.)
2.Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than 1 year after
the occurrence.(Gov.Code Sec.911.2.)
3.Read entire claim form before filing.
4.See Page 2 for diagram upon which to locate place of accident.
5.THIS CLAIM FORM MUST BE SIGNED ON PAGE 2 AT BOTTOM.
6.Attach separate sheets,if necessary,to give full details.SIGN EACH SHEET.
.
.~II~~~L~~K'S OFFICE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
~~~4~fH~C:~~~n':a~~:erdes TO PERSON OR PROPERTY
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
TO:CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Date of Birth of Claimant
1/2/1967
Name of Claimant
CHERINE MEDAWAR
Home Address of Claimant
Business Address of Claimant
c/o Richar~.T.Ferko,
Give address and telephone number to which you desire notices or
communications to be sent regarding this claim:Richard T.
21031 Ventura Blvd.#921,Woodland Hills,CA 91364
Occupation of Claimant
DEVEL ER
Home Telephone Number
When did DAMAGE or INJURY occur?Names of any city employees involved in INJURY or DAMAGE
Date Tune Time oP8 oip g JOEL ROJAS,CAROL LYNCH,CAROLYN LEHR,
If claim is for Equitable Indemnity,gIVe dare JIM LANCASTER
claimant served with the complaint:
Date
Where did DAMAGE or INJURY occur?Describe fully,and locate on diagram on Page 2.Where appropriate,give
street names and address and measurements from landmarks:
3001 Crownview Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 AND
2973 Crownview Drive,RAncho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Describe in detail how the DAMAGE or INJURY occurred.
The city is gulty of selec~ive code enforcemene and retailative actions
against claimant.The attached email correspondence sets forth
claimant's positin.
Why do you claim the city is responsible?
The city is uilty of selective code enforcement and retaliative actiosn
against claimant.The attached email correspondence sets forth
clalmant;'s pssitin.
Describe in detail each INJURY or DAMAGE.
Claimant's property has been harmed and claimant has had to expend
large sums of money attempting to comply with the unreasonalbe and·
retaliatory actions of the city
This Claim Must Be Signed on Page 2 F-2
·n r
The amount claimed,as of the date o\-p~(esentation of this claim,is computed as foli",",s:
Damages incurred to date (exact):Estimated prospective damages as far as known:
Damage to property.0 0 0 ••0 ••0 •••00 •••00 $1 ,000,000 Future expenses for medical and hospital care 0 $ _
Expenses for medical and hospital care 0 • 0 $Future loss of earnings ..0 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 0 ••••••0 ••0 $ _
Loss of earnings ..0 0 0 ••••0 0 0 • 0 0 ••••••0 $Other prospective special damages ..0 ••0 0 0 0 0 $2 5 ,aa 0
Special damages for ....0 ••0 0 • 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 $25 000 Prospective general damages 0 0 0 0 0 •••0 •••0 0 0 $ _
,Total estimate prospective damages ..0000.$1 ,000
General damages:0 • 0 ••0 •••••••0 $1 ,000,000
Total damages Incurred to date 0 • 0 0 0 0'0 $2 0-00 000
Total amount claimed as of date of presentation o'f (hIS claim:$3,000 ,000 .
Was damage and/or injury investigated by police?NO If so,what city?_
Were paramedics or ambulance called?NO If so,name city or ambulance _
If injured,state date,time,name and address of doctor of your first visit _
WITNESSES to DAMAGE or INJURY:List all persons and a ersons known to have information:
Name TILL MEDAWAR Address •••••Phone,_
Name Address Phone._
Name Address Phone,_
DOCTORS and HOSPITALS:
Hospital __..J.o.L-Address....,........Oate Hospitalized,_
Doctor 0 Address ,.,if Date of Treatment _
Doctor Address Date of Treatment _
READ CAREFULLY
For all accident claims place on following diagram names your vehicle When you first saw City vehicle;location of
of streets,including North,East,South,and West;indicate City vehicle at time of accident by "A-1"and location of
place of accident by "X"and by showing house numbers yourself or your vehicle at the time of the accident by
or distances to street corners.If City Vehicle was "B-1"and the point of impact by "X."NOTE:If diagrams
involved,designate by letter "A"location of City Vehicle below do not fit the situation,attach hereto a proper
when you first saw it,and by "B"location of yourself or diagram signed by the claimant.
SIDEWALK
CURBJ
PARKWAY
SIDEWALK
CURB'
Date:
r
Typed Name:
RICHARD T.FERKO,ESQ.f
CHERINE MEDAWAR
OVo Code Sec.915a).Presentation of a false claim is a felony (Pen.Code Sec.72.)
F-3
Richard Ferko
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Mr.Medawar
Joel Rojas [JoeIR@rpv.com]
Thursday,September 13,2012 5:54 PM
cherine medawar
Carol Lynch ~;Carolyn Lehr;Richard Ferko
RE:Jim Lan~war
I have to say I am very puzzled about your perception of me as a result of the square footage discrepancy matter related
to Mrs.Jeffers house.You brought to my attention a discrepancy between the square footage listed in our permit files and
the square footage listed by the County Assessor for your neighbor's house which I found troubling and so I agreed to
investigate.After reviewing all of the permit data in our files along with the data that my staff obtained after visiting the
County Assessor's office,I met with you and presented to you all of the data along with my opinion for the cause of the
discrepancy.I understand you do not accept my explanation as you believe your neighbor added unpermitted square
footage when the house was originally constructed which the City didn't catch.At our last meeting,I acknowledged that
while unpermitted square footage could have been added,we have no evidence of that actually occurring.While you
stated that you have'eVidence,no such evidence has been presented to me.Thus,until such time as any such evidence
to the contrary is submitted,our position is that the square footage discrepancy invol~tlg your neighbor's house is not due
to unpermitted construction.While I acknowledge that we disagree on this square:f06tage issue,I don't accept your
categorization that I,or any other City staff member has been actively trying to deceive you.
With regards to your retaining wall,as you know you have been in the process of securing the necessary permits to
legalize the unpermitted retaining wall on your property.The most important aspect of the City's review of your permit
application is to ensure that the wall meets the building code requirements for structural safety.Part of that review
involves the City's contract geologist reviewing and approving a soils report prepared by a geotechnical engineer of your
choosing to ensure that the soils report addresses all of the necessary elements to ensure a structurally sound wall
design.I understand you are very upset because your engineers'soils report related to the retaining wall has yet to be
approved by the City's Geologist Jim Lancaster despite 3 separate submittals of information by your geotechnical
engineer.I have reviewed your engineer's reports along with Mr.Lancaster's responses to the reports with Mr.Lancaster
and the City Attorney.It is clear that the need for the additional report submittals by your engineer is because the
questions/comments raised by Mr.Lancaster in his review letters were not being addressed.In fact,there are only two
very minor items that are left to be addressed to get your soils report approved.One of the items involves the answer to a
question that was asked twice previously by Mr.Lancaster and the other is the submittal of an item that your engineer
said he would submit on a previous response.This is clearly not a case of Mr.Lancaster asking new questions with each
additional submittal.I and the City Attorney believe that the two outstanding issues could be easily addressed by your
engineer.Thus,we have asked Mr.Lancaster to contact your engineer directly to resolve the matter.
In closing,I want to stress that this very thorough review of your retaining wall permit is not being done to harass you or
get you to pay more money but to ensure that the new retrofitted retaining wall is designed and built to adequately hold
back the approximate 20-feet plus of extreme slope that also serves as a buttress to the public street above.I realize you
are frustrated and feel that you are being treated differently than your neighbor as her after-the-fact legalization efforts
were not as involved.However,you have to realize that obtaining after-the-fact approval for unpermitted square footage is
very different than trying to obtain after-the-fact approval for a retaining wall that is at the base of a very steep slope
supporting a public street.It is for this reason that Mr.Lancaster is carefully reviewing the soils reports for retrofitting the
wall as .well he should for your protection and for the protection of the public infrastructure.
If you would like to meet for me to go over Mr.Lancaster's review of the soils reports,I would be happy to do that.If you
would rather meet with the City Manager and City Attorney,that can be arranged as well.
Sincerely
Joel Rojas
1
F-4
From:cherine medawa
Sent:Monday,September 10,20125:37 PM
To:Joel Rojas
Cc:Carol Lynch ;Carolyn Lehr;Richard Ferko
Subject:Re:Jim landcaster /Cherine Medawar
Dear Mr.Rojas
Unfortunately after our last meeting when you admitted that Mrs.Jeffers house was not a 4987 sq.ft and is
2490 sq.ft,you lost all credibility and left me wondering why would anyone in your position lie and carryon
that lie for 6 to 7 month,so you would have to excuse my frustration in dealing with you regarding this matter.I
have tried to work through all the challenges that you have put me through and have finally come to the
conclusion that enough is enough
Mr.Lancaster could be-for all I know,carrying on what ever the direction you have set forth.
Mr.Rojas,you have proven that you can misrepresent the facts and make the process very challenging thus why
I have no choice but to end this charade after trying for so long to pass a wall through building and saf~ty and
time and money and the frustration..
One thing bothers me that you never asked Mrs.Jeffers for a soil report or geology report since my original
complaint of a crack that grew from 2 inch in 2002 to 3 to 4 ft in 2011 yet I ha(;l"fo provide one and my wall has
no cracks'·,.
I am surprised you are allowed to carry on in the same capacity of Director after that meeting.
I do not wish to meet with you since you have lied to me before,I can meet with Mrs.Lynch and Mrs.Lehr
Cherine Medawar
Mr.Medawar
As we discussed this morning,you are frustrated that your soils report has not been approved by the City Geologist and
thus you believe the system is flawed.I have obtained copies of the back and forth that has gone on between your
engineer and Jim Lancaster and plan to meet with Mr.Lancaster this Wednesday morning to go over it.After I do that,I
would be happy to meet with you sometime later this week to discuss the matter with you.Are you available to meet
some time this Wednesday afternoon (between 1 and 5)or this Thursday (between 10 and noon)?
Joel
From:cherine medawar
Sent:Monday,September
To:Joel Rojas
Subject:Jim Landcaster /Cherine Medawar
Dear Joel,
I want to clarify my position.The city is subcontracting Jim Landcaster to do the city soil studies,and by
having only one person making the decisions,you are giving too much power to Jim Landcaster.It puts the soil
engineer that is dealing with Jim Landcaster in a bad position.If I was a soil engineer and didn't get along with
2
F-5
Richard Ferko
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Mr.Rojas
cherine medawar _____
Monday,Septemb~
Joel Rojas
Carol Lynch"""-';Carolyn Lehr;Richard Ferko
Re:Jim Lan~war
Unfortunately after our last meeting when you admitted that Mrs.Jeffers house was not a 4987 sq.ft and is
2490 sq.ft,you lost all credibility and left me wondering why would anyone in your position lie and carry on
that lie for 6 to 7 month,so you would have to excuse my frustration in dealing with you regarding this matter.I
have tried to work through all the challenges that you have put me through and have finally come to the
conclusion that enough is enough
Mr.Lancaster could be-for all I know,carrying on what ever the direction you have set forth.
Mr.Rojas,you have proven that you can misrepresent the facts and make the process very challenging thus why
I have no choice but to,end this charade after trying for so long to pass a wall through building and safety and
·,~t1"
time and money and the frustration.
One thing bothers me that you never asked Mrs.Jeffers for a soil report or geology report since my original
complaint of a crack that grew from 2 inch in 2002 to 3 to 4 ft in 2011 yet I had to provide one and my wall has
no cracks
I am surprised you are allowed to carry on in the same capacity ofDirector after that meeting.
I do not wish to meet with you since you have lied to me before,I can meet with Mrs.Lynch and Mrs.Lehr
Cherine Medawar ',.',
From:Joel Rojas <JoeIR@rpv.com>
To:cherine medawar
Cc:"Carol Lynch
Sent:Monday,Septem er I
Subject:RE:Jim Landcaster I Cherine Medawar
Mr.Medawar
;Carolyn Lehr <clehr@rpv.com>
As we discussed this morning,you are frustrated that your soils report has not been approved by the City Geologist and
thus you believe the system is flawed.I have obtained copies of the back and forth that has gone on between your
engineer and Jim Lancaster and plan to meet with Mr.Lancaster this Wednesday morning to go over it.After I do that,I
would be happy to meet with you sometime later this week to discuss the matter with you.Are you available to meet
some ti!1le this Wednesday afternoon (between 1 and 5)or this Thursday (between 10 and noon)?
Joel
From:cherine medawar
Sent:Monday,September 1 ,
To:Joel Rojas
Subject:Jim Landcaster /Cherine Medawar
Dear Joel,
1
F-6
'I want to clarify my position.The city is subcontracting Jim Landcaster to do the city soil studies,and by
having only one person making the decisions,you are giving too much power to Jim Landcaster.It puts the soil
engineer that is dealing'iwith Jim Landcaster in a bad position.If I was a soil engineer and didn't get along with
Jim Landcaster,then my customer suffers.If Jim does not like a certain soil engineer or customer,then it
doesn't matter what the soil engineer writes Jim has the power to delay the project;and best of all,if Jim is
running low on funds,all he has to do is require additional soil reports and ask for more clarification,Then,he
will be able to pay for his son's tuition,which is expensive,according to Jim.
Your system is flawed and biased.The proper way of handling this would be to have four different soil
engineers.
The first engineer woutd investigate if a soil report is required;and then the report would go to a second
engineer to review the report.If a correction is needed,then it would go to a third engineer....and so on.The
report would never go to the same engineer twice."
We use engineers to save us money when building.But in my situation,when I first hired Tony Lee,his report
was so different than what he told me to do.His explanation was that "this is the only way Jim Landcaster
would pass this so~l report."When I took the report to my structural engineer,Ron Hall;he did not agree and
would not go along with it.Tony Lee knows how Jim wants to see the report;and writes it that way,even ifhe
knew it cannot be don!';"It certainly appears that everyone covers their b~lrln(rand leaves the client to deal with
the inspector later."
Cherine Medawar
'""i~'
2
F-7
lim Landcaster,then my customer suffers.If Jim does not like a certain soil engineer or customer,then it
doesn't matter what the soil engineer writes Jim has the power to delay the project;and best of all,if Jim is
running low on funds,all he has to do is require additional soil reports and ask for more clarification.Then,he
will be able to pay for his son's tuition,which is expensive,according to Jim.
Your system is flawed and biased.The proper way of handling this would be to have four different soil
engineers.
The first engineer would investigate if a soil report is required;and then the report would go to a second
engineer to review the report.If a correction is needed,then it would go to a third engineer....and so on.The
report would never go to the same engineer twice.
We use engineers to save us money when building.But in my situation,when I first hired Tony Lee,his report
was so different than what he told me to do.His explanation was that "this is the only way Jim Landcaster
would pass this soil report."When I took the report to my structural engineer,Ron Hall;he did not agree and
would not go along with it.Tony Lee knows how Jim wants to see the report;and writes it that way,even ifhe
knew it cannot be done.It certainly appears that everyone covers their behind and leaves the client to deal with
theinspectorlater..
Cherine Medawar
3
F-8
Richard Ferko
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
cherine medawar •••••
Friday.September 14,20121:51 PM
Joel Rojas
Carol Lynch ;Carolyn Lehr;Richard Ferko
Re:Jim Lan~war
Hi Joel
Here are some facts that we have gone over in our previous meeting regarding the Jeffer's sq.ft difference
1 -House is 98x37=3626
2 -Permit approved for SFR of2490 and garage 842 =3332
3 -The difference from actual 3626 and permit pulled is 3332 leaves us with 294 sq.ft
4 -The difference 294 divided by 98ft = 3 ft added all along the view side which blocks my water view by 3 ft.
And the upstairs is a storage and is not in the sq.ft since it does not meet the 8 ft ceiling.
Those were the facts and that is why Mrs.Lynch asked for the bathroom upstairs to be taken out since you can
not have bathroom'in non habitable space
5 -Assessors office has the house as 4987 and it should be 2490 that still did nofchange even though I was told,.?
your office called and followed up with the assessors office.
6 -Mrs.Lynch said she can not win a code enforcement case against the Jeffers because she can not see a Judge
ordering the Jeffers to tear down the 3 ft extra and that is when I said that the treatment should be the same and
building and safety should be fair to both parties but somehow I am the one spending money and still can not
obtain a permit.
I noticed you did not mention the Jeffers crack that grew from 2 inch to 3 to 4 ft or ask for her to provide any
soil or geology report.
Now regarding my wall originally I wanted to take out the wall but was told I could not because it would affect
the stability of the hill so I started to try and legalize the retaining wall and find that after 4 month of trying and
spending thousands of dollars and I still have not touched the wall.
If a court tells me to tear down the wall then I would of gotten what I wanted and did not spend all this time,
money and frustration which is something I wanted to do originally.
Now regarding Mr.Lancaster the opinion that I shared is not just mine several homeowners and contractors talk
about how rigged it is.My example of Tony Lee writing the report how Jim Lancaster would want it so Jim
would approve it says it all
When Mrs.Lynch said she was not going to pursue the Jeffers it was not a knee jerk reaction to sue the city,but
I will not allow myself to be the victim in this situation.
Should you want to discuss any of these matters please be honest and up front would you have told me your
office made a mistake I would of worked around it but when I sense that someone is not telling me the truth I
try to avoid
Cherine Medawar
From:Joel Rojas <JoeiR r v.com>
To:cherine medawar
Cc:"Carol Lynch
<ferkolaw@sbcglo a .net>
Sent:Thursday,September 13.20125:53 PM
Subject:RE:Jim Landcaster I Cherine Medawar
Dear Mr.Medawar
1
.Carolyn Lehr <clehr@rpv.com>;Richard Ferko
F-9
'1 have to say I am very puzzled about your perception of me as a result of the square footage discrepancy matter related
to Mrs.Jeffers house.You brought to my attention a discrepancy between the square footage listed in our permit files and
the square footage listed by the County Assessor for your neighbor's house which I found troubling and so I agreed to
investigate.After reviewing all of the permit data in our files along with the data that my staff obtained after visiting the
County Assessor's office,I met with you and presented to you all of the data along with my opinion for the cause of the
discrepancy.I understand you do not accept my explanation as you believe your neighbor added unpermitted square
footage when the house was originally constructed which the City didn't catch.At our last meeting,I acknowledged that
while unpermitted square footage could have been added,we have no evidence of that actually occurring.While you
stated that you have evidence,no such evidence has been presented to me.Thus,until such time as any such evidence
to the contrary is submitted,our position is that the square footage discrepancy involving your neighbor's house is not due
to unpermitted construction.While I acknowledge that we disagree on this square footage issue,I don't accept your
categorization that I,or any other City staff member has been actively trying to deceive you.
With regards to your retaining wall,as you know you have been in the process of securing the necessary permits to
legalize the unpermitted retaining wall on your property.The most important aspect of the City's review of your permit
application is to ensure that the wall meets the building code requirements for structural safety.Part of that review
involves the City's contract geologist reviewing and approving a soils report prepared by a geotechnical engineer of your
choosing to ensure that the soils report addresses all of the necessary elements to ensure a structurally sound wall
design.I understand you are very upset because your engineers'soils report related to the retaining wall has yet to be
approved by the City's Geologist Jim Lancaster despite 3 separate submittals of information by your geotechnical
engineer.I have reviewed your engineer's reports along with Mr.Lancaster's responses to the reports with Mr.Lancaster
and the City Attorney.It is clear that the need for the additional report submittals by YC»J{engineer is because the
questions/comments raised by Mr.Lancaster in his review letters were not being pddressed.In fact,there are only two
very minor items that are left to be addressed to get your soils report approved.One of the items involves the answer to a
question that was asked twice previously by Mr.Lancaster and the other is the submittal of an item that your engineer
said he would submit on a previous response.This is clearly not a case of Mr.Lancaster asking new questions with eacH
additional submittal.I and the City Attorney believe that the two outstanding issues could be easily addressed by your
engineer.Thus,we have asked Mr.Lancaster to contact your engineer directly to resolve the matter.
In closing,I want to stress that this very thorough review of your retaining wall permit is not being done to harass you or
get you to pay more money but to ensure that the new retrofitted retaining wall is designed and built to adequately hold
back the approximate 20-feet plus of extreme slope that also serves as a buttress to the public street above.I realize you
are frustrated and feel that you are being treated differently than your neighbor as her after-the-fact legalization efforts
were not as involved.However,you have to realize that obtaining after-the-fact approval for unpermitted square footage is
very different than trying to obtain after-the-fact approval for a retaining wall that is at the base of a very steep slope
supporting a pUblic street.It is for this reason that Mr.Lancaster is carefully reviewing the soils reports for retrofitting the
wall as well he should for your protection and for the protection of the public infrastructure.
If you would like to meet for me to go over Mr.Lancaster's review of the soils reports,I would be happy to do that.If you
would rather meet with the City Manager and City Attorney,that can be arranged as well.
Sincerely
Joel Rojas
From:cherine medawar
Sent:Monday,September
To:Joel Rojas
Cc:Carol Lynch i Carolyn Lehr i Richard Ferko
Subject:Re:Jim Landcaster I Cherine Medawar
Dear Mr.Rojas
Unfortunately after our last meeting when you admitted that Mrs.Jeffers house was not a 4987 sq.ft and is
2490 sq.ft,you lost all credibility and left me wondering why would anyone in your position lie and carryon
that lie for 6 to 7 month,so you would have to excuse my frustration in dealing with you regarding this matter.I
2
F-10
'have tried to work through all the challenges that you have put me through and have finally come to the
conclusion that enough is enough
Mr.Lancaster could be-for all I know,carrying on what ever the direction you have set forth.
Mr.Rojas,you have proven that you can misrepresent the facts and make the process very challenging thus why
I have no choice but to end this charade after trying for so long to pass a wall through building and safety and
time and money and the frustration.
One thing bothers me that you never asked Mrs.Jeffers for a soil report or geology report since my original
complaint of a crack that grew from 2 inch in 2002 to 3 to 4 ft in 2011 yet I had to provide one and my wall has
no cracks
I am surprised you are allowed to carryon in the same capacity of Director after that meeting.
I do not wish to meet with you since you have lied to me before,I can meet with Mrs.Lynch and Mrs.Lehr
Cherine Medawar
From:Joel Rojas <JoeiR r v.com>
To:cherine medawar
Cc:II Carol Lynch
Sent:Monday,Sep ember 10,2012 4:0 M
Subject:RE:Jim Landcaster I Cherine Medawar
Mr.Medawar
Carolyn Lehr <clelilr@rpv.com>
":"'I'
As we discussed this morning,you are frustrated that your soils report has not been approved by the City Geologist and
thus you believe the system is flawed.I have obtained copies of the back and forth that has gone on between your
engineer and Jim Lancaster and plan to meet with Mr.Lancaster this Wednesday morning to go over it.After I do that,I
would be happy to meet with you sometime later this week to discuss the matter with you.Are you available to meet
some time this Wednesday afternoon (between 1 and 5)or this Thursday (between 10 and noon)?
Joel
From:cherine medawar
Sent:Monday,September 10,201211:30 A
To:Joel Rojas
Subject:Jim Landcaster /Cherine Medawar
Dear Joel,
I want to clarify my position.The city is subcontracting Jim Landcaster to do the city soil studies,and by
having only one person making the decisions,you are giving too much power to Jim Landcaster.It puts the soil
engineer that is dealing with Jim Landcaster in a bad position.If I was a soil engineer and didn't get along with
Jim Landcaster,then my customer suffers.If Jim does not like a certain soil engineer or customer,then it
doesn't matter what the soil engineer writes Jim has the power to delay the project;and best of all,if Jim is
running low on funds,all he has to do is require additional soil reports and ask for more clarification.Then,he
will be able to pay for his son's tuition,which is expensive,according to Jim.
Your system is flawed and biased.The proper way of handling this would be to have four different soil-
engmeers.
The first engineer would investigate if a soil report is required;and then the report would go to a second
engineer to review the report.If a correction is needed,then it would go to a third engineer....and so on.The
report would never go to the same engineer twice.
3
F-11
We use engineers to save us money when building.But in my situation,when I first hired Tony Lee,his report
was so different than what he told me to do.His explanation was that "this is the only way Jim Landcaster
would pass this soil report."When I took the report to my structural engineer,Ron Hall;he did not agree and
would not go along with it.Tony Lee knows how Jim wants to see the report;and writes it that way,even if he
knew it cannot be done.It certainly appears that everyone covers their behind and leaves the client to deal with
the inspector later.
Cherine Medawar
4
F-12
Richard Ferko
From:
Sent:
To:
SUbject:
cherine medawar"""-'"
Tuesday,Septem~
Richard Ferko
Fw:Response
-----Forwarded Message ----
From:cherine medawar
To:Carolyn Lehr <clehr@rpv.com>
Sent:Tuesday,September 18,20129:23 PM
Subject:Re:Response
Dear Mrs Lehr,
My frustration is due to the City of RPV's selective code enforcement.Your staff chose what they would pursue
and what they would not.With that choice,I suffered and my neighbor dig,Mf::...even though there were
similar violations (hers being even more egregious !)Your staff elected this route under the direction of Joel
Rojas.First,Mr.Rojas also choose to misrepresent the facts regarding the Jeffers'total square footage of the
house to me for 6 months;and to my wife at the meeting,After you and Carol agreed that this did not make
sense;Rojas finally admitted the square footage was 2490.
My frustration is not with not only what needs to be done,but how the city has elected to get it done.Had Joel
had been honest and upfront from day one,this would not have been an issue.My frustration and loss of
money,sleep and stress is due to deliberate misrepresentations and selective enforcement by Joel Rojas,which
leaves me wondering WHY he lied.What is his personal interest in this?Did someone pay him?What
information is he hiding from me?Who told him to lie?Why would anyone continue lying for so long?
Maybe it is a game of power for those in charge.A few years ago,when Trump was getting plans approved for
the houses,I was in the city ofRPV at the counter when I overheard the planner (who is no longer there)
commenting on how he was enjoying giving Trump a hard time and had required an alarm on a septic tank;and
how no one would be able to figure out what the alarm was about.
Would your department have required the Jeffers to remedy the square foot issue,I would not be frustrated.I
have tried to resolve this by cooperating;and would the process have been faster,I would have moved on to
another project.
Regarding my Geotechnical Engineer,he did not return any of Mr.Lancaster calls or mine;and last I spoke
with him,he expressed to me the fact that he was frustrated with dealing with the city.My attorney will follow
up with him.
I hope~this has been a good learning experience to be honest and fair,as I said before I don't think this will be
resolved anytime soon.
I have tried to avoid a lawsuit with the city,but I am left with no choice but to seek justice.
Cherine Medawar
1
F-13
From:Carolyn Lehr <clehr@rpv.com>
To:cherine medawar
Cc:Joel Rojas <JoeIR@rpv.com>;"aro Lynch
Sent:Tuesday,September 18,2012 3:27 PM
Subject:Response
Dear Mr.Medawar
In our recent conversation,I understand that you are frustrated with the length of time it is taking for the City's
Geotechnical consultant,Mr.Jim Lancaster,to approve the soils report submitted by your geotechnical engineer in
association with your after-the-fact permit request to structurally retrofit an unpermitted retaining wall on your property.I
understand that given your frustration you have instructed your geotechnical engineer to not respond to the last set of
comments/corrections issued by Mr.Lancaster and that you are seeking the City to unconditionally approve your permit
request so that you can begin retrofitting your existing retaining wall.
As I noted in previous emails from Joel Rojas,before the City can issue you a permit to begin the retaining wall retrofit,
the City needs to ensure that the new retrofitted retaining wall is designed to adequately hold back the approximate 20-
feet plus of extreme slope that also serves as a buttress to the public street above.To achieve this,the City's
geotechnical consultqnt must review and approve a soils report of the subject area before it is relied on by your structural
engineer to design the wall's foundation.Given the unique soil and geologic characteristi~s encountered on the Palos
Verdes Peninsula and the impact of said characteristics on the structural stability ofJet9ining walls,the City Geologist's
role is to ensure that all pertinent issues are identified and addressed in the soils 'report.The City Attorney and Mr.Rojas
have reviewed the back and forth that has occurred between Mr.Lancaster and your geotechnical engineer and we
believe that the issues raised by Mr.Lancaster are legitimate and necessary given the situation.However,I understand
that there are only two issues left to be addressed by your geotechnical engineer,and Mr.Lancaster believes that a
simple phone call between them,followed by written documentation from your geotechnical engineer, could resolve the
matter.
However,I understand that you do not wish to allow your geotechnical engineer to speak to Mr.Lancaster.Instead,I
understand that you are requesting that Mr.Rojas or I step in and simply issue you the necessary building permit to begin
retrofitting the retaining wall.I'm afraid that we cannot do that for a number of reasons.For one,Mr.Rojas nor I is
qualified to approve a soils report.Therefore,we cannot step in and automatically approve the soils report that you have
submitted.Secondly,a structural engineered plan indicating how the retrofit is going to be done has not been submitted
to the City's Building &Safety Division.Said plan needs to be wet-stamped by a licensed engineer and needs to
incorporate the recommendations of a City-approved soils report.Furthermore,said plan needs to be reviewed and
approved through the City's plan check process before the permit to begin the work can be issued.
At this time,I urge you to allow your geotechnical engineer to speak to Mr.Lancaster so that Mr.Lancaster;s remaining
two comments can be addressed.As an alternative,you can request that the City try to seek a second opinion from a
different geotechnical consultant on the soils report you have submitted.While the City does not have a second
geotechnical engineer under contract,we can try to get someone on board on a temporary contract to review the matter.
However,please note that pursuing this "second opinion"will add additional delay and result in a considerable cost to you,
given that a new geologist will need to review all the relevant materials from scratch.Since we find no irregularities in Mr.
lancaster's review,the cost of seeking this "second opinion"would be your responsibility.
I should note that if you decide to no longer pursue your permit to retrofit your retaining wall,we will have no choice but to
forwarq the matter to the City Attorney's office for resolution,as the unpermitted wall at the toe of the steep slope below
the public street is of great concern to the City.Likewise,if you should elect to remove the existing wall and leave an
unsupported cut,we will have no choice but to take whatever steps the City feels is necessary to ensure that the structural
integrity of the slope is not compromised.
Please feel free to contact Mr.Rojas or me at your earliest convenience on how you wish to proceed.
Carolyn Lehr
City Manager
2
F-14
SIZE
IN SQ.FEET
o ADDITION
o OCCUPANCY PMr.
o ALTER
o DEMO
LOCATION ON
PRoPERTY
OCCUPANCY
o REPAIR
2.
3.PH.
lIC.NO.
PHONE
ZIP
License Number _
COntractor _
CITY BUSINESS LICENSE
EXPIRATION DATELICENSENO.
CITY
ADDRESS
License Class _
Dato _
ADDRESS _
CITY AND ZIP
CONTRACTOR
LICENSED CONTRACTOR'S DECLARATION
I hereby affirm that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000 of
Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code,and my license is in full force and effect.
I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which
this·permit is issued (Sec.t097,Civ.C)Lender's Name __"/{-!--f)/I;j.u"!!¥-&6-.:..._
Lender's Address
OWNER·BUILDER DECLARATION
Date:INITIAL
CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY
I hereby affirm that,am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason:
o I,as owner of the property,or my employees with wages as their sole compensation,will do the
work,and the structure is not intended or offered for sale.
..'II,as owner of the property,am exclusi\lely contracting with licensed contractol)l to construct the
prdject.
-g I am exempt under Sec.•B&PC for this reason _
PROJECT1-__-=--:.....L.-=~=::.__~cLl'_!.:=:....::..:....:!!t___=__=___=_'=__::_l DESCRIPTION
APPLICATION "\,Itt A BUILDING PERMIT AND A CERTIFICATE OF \"",cIP~_.30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD
•RANCHO PALOS VERDES RANCHO p~~~~5~~~~~S,CA 90274 \
r----~~-----~~___:O::~~___:~-___,OlCLEAREDBYApplIOOIONTYPENO.cv()w"ivle0 5
~~W~L.__-r-TR_A..:CT~:;;;:::::...::::'::::..:7~,b:;..+-;~~
THE FOLLOWING WORK IS AUTHORIZED BY THIS PERMIT:gt-:.---=~::.!':~=---=-~~~~::;;~=-=-=-=o:::-------I-':':"::;;:':::':':"::":'':''':':7.o..:..:.':-':'''''-~;::---~""7-----;J)
6CH.ELECT.rn
::.._-------~------------I~?~
o CONVERT
WORKERS'COMPENSATION DECLARATION
I h~reby affirm that I have a certificate of consent to sel(insure,or a certificate of Workers'
·Compensation Insurance,or a certified copy thereof.POLICY NO._
PERMIT NUMBJ,-B'
PLAN CHECK:
lOfAL PERMIT FEE:'I
17i2f:v'!-
ISSUANCE FEES:
STRUCTURAL:
GRADING:
DIVISION
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL:
VALUATI~1.
'*If11'
GRO~
h ....n
Date
DIifE EXpIRES:-'-__-'-
CITY VERIFIED:_
APPLICANT:_
Date:APPLICANT:
Dalo:_
CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM WORKERS'COMPENSATION INSURANCE
I·certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is iSSUed,I shall not employ any
person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers'Compensation Laws of California.
COMpANY -------
o Certified copy is hereby furnished
'0 Certified copy is filed with the city
Print Applicant's I Agent's Name
NonCE 10 APPLICANT:If,after making this Certificate of Exemption,you should become subject
10 the Workers'Compensation provisions of the Labor Code,you must forthwith comply with such
provision or this permit shall be deemed revoked.~__--...;..------.....;.....------_--_----_...PLUMBING:I-------.!"---"L..-;~;;;:<""r----'--t-----........_.:_:;~Ti
F-15
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
BUILDING LOCATION CERTIFICATION..
,To be filled out bYL~.~icensed land surveyor or registered civil
e.ngineer.
"'-_LS/RCE;"7797 'I?a~~e AV(;~~"2,,/2£/t
.....
.'
I have surveyed the foundation forms located
7;973 lft;t~V"E-"'-"J)r-;v<!?.on ,(~D~a::.t::;e~)ex::;~~~~l-L,l:;..L",j~...--.--,/fi;
and found the top form elevation to .be .I . ,
r have reviewed the plans ~n site bearing the approval stam~of
the City of Rancho ~alos Verdes prepared by /Avell LAS'Au:..I1.fe<:.
and dated ~cJ,.,9 and f.outfld that finish floor
elevation ac 6rdance with those plans.t •
Signatur.
1o..El"evation Certification,.
B.,Building Location Certification:
c.
walls and/or other
LS IRCE 27797 Date'August'7,
!have measured/s.urveyed.the elev~tion.of the ridge of the .-:_~
structure at (Address)2973 Crownv~ew DrJ.ve on.~.SS!o'!0~~'
COate)l'Jov~ber 6,1989 and found ,the elevation of the highest r'",~:,·',\\..E.O-1'\Q-~~
to be _-•I have reviewed the plans on site beari'n ~.:tfif (,?--:.\{:.;\~
approval atilmp.of the City 'OJ.R.ancho p.alOs Verdes prepared by.i~.~;·.~::-ji;;;\\
Lowell Lusk Archl.tect and dated March 7,1989 and found ~No.27 (97 I.ij
the rid levat'is in accordance with those plans.':r.0 \J..-,rf..~lV\J./.~':.''''}~'.~'~~~~
Signatul:'Ls/RCE 27797 Date November 6,1 OF C!.y:~~
~0940 HAWTHORNE DOULEVARO I nANOIO PALOS VEnOES.CA 90274.5391 I (~":",:,.'7·0:\GO F-16
BUILDING
ADDRESS
Lor BLOCK TRACT BUILDING INSPECTIONS RECORD
OWNER
ADDRESS .....
CITY ZIP
.
PH.
PLU~BING DATE APPROVEDIlNSPR'S
SIGNATURE REMARKS
::,GROUND SOIL P1 -,")\a;;.....~t ,Ii
,"'t r -'"".....
..,./,
\
..............
.....,._k
I\~\ _'\....N\
DATE APPRcwEOIINSPR'S
SIGNATURE
E3
M4
54
.~:-t'ELECTRiCAl
GROUND WATER
UNDERGROUND
PVC-METAl·D.B.C.
FINAL PLUMBING
'If~-/.
TEMP.CON.STN.POWER
ROUGH
ROUGH WIRING
RECEPl'.SPACING·
SlERVlCE-ClRClJIT
AIR CONDo
lOP OUT
FIIi!Al ~ECHANICAL
(,..
UNOERGROUNOIFlOOA
SLAB:REINF.li..MEMBRAN~53 .~.....\~~.........~
UNDERPINNING
FOUNDATION:LOCATION 51 '
REINFORCED 0 UFER 0 ..\
.SEWER
.~ASIEST..,.
,MASONRY .•
ROOF FRAMING"
.~F SHEATHING)
FRAMING
"INSULATION ---.,
SOUNDIENERGY
BUILDING FINAL
Sl1
811
PERMIT NUMBER
F-17
Map Output Page 1 of 1
http://www.giscentral.com/servlet/com.esri.esrimaD.Esriman?ServiceName=CitvotRPVO...11/912011F-18
tVlap Uutput Page 1 of 1
http://www.giscentral.com!servletlcom.esri.esrimap.Esrim;;tp?ServiceName=CityofRPVO...l/27/20 11F-19
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD T.FERKO
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Telephone:(818)712-2222
Facsimile:(818)347-6554
E-mail:ferkolaw@sbcglobal.net
September 27,2012
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City Clerk
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275.
Re:Cherine'Medawar
Dear Sir/Madam:
21 031 Ventura Boulevard
Suite 921
Woodland Hills,California 91364-2263
RECEIVED
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
SEP 28 2012i
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
,'.....'?],.
Please file the enclosed Claim for Damages and return a stamped copy to my office in the
envelope provided.Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation herein.
Very truly yours,
:lso
Enc!.
F-20