Loading...
20100316 Late CorrespondenceMarch 16, 2010 Mayor Wolowitz Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Honorable Members: As you may be aware, many Rancho Palos Verdes residents are concerned with the problem related the San Ramon/Tarapaca Landslide. In the last rainstorm, a large amount of mud flowed down the lower San Ramon canyon and ended up on 25th Street. While damage was limited in this instance, more rain is forecasted. Hence, we strongly urge the City to immediately address the Palos Verdes Drives East and South Road Stabilization Project otherwise known as the "Lower San Ramon/Tarapaca Landslide." We can all agree that Palos Verdes Drive East provides critical access to our neighborhood, the eastern side of the peninsula, and our community. Notwithstanding the disruptions in traffic it causes and the reliance on City of Los Angeles to clean up after each rainstorm, we are concerned about the continual effect this has on the west bank of the canyon that supports this arterial. This as an urgent issue that needs to be addressed now before further damage is done. We recommend that an interim solution should be sought to prevent erosion and thereby reduce the amount of soil flowing out of the canyon. This has several advantages: First, it buys time while support for a more permanent solution can be obtained. And second, it demonstrates a good neighbor policy towards adjacent jurisdictions. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in this matter. We look forward to working with the City to address this timely issue. Si re , PAULA PETROTTA Vice President -A #L3 RECEIVE=FRO AND MARECORD AT THCOUNCl/all ��� ����0ITY CLERKCA, CITY CLERK RANCHO PALOS VERDES REPLY MEMORANDUM TO: Joel Rojas & Kit Fox FROM: Steve Wolowicz CC: Carolyn Lehr DATE: March 14, 2010 SUBJECT: cc meeting 3-16-10 item #11 EIR for zone 2 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Joel and Kit, Please help with these questions regarding the proposed EIR. Thanks, Steve Councilman Wolowicz: Please see Staff's replies below in boldface type. 1. When an EIR is requested (required) from a developer they normally pay for the EIR not the City. Please remind me the reason for the City initiating this work in advance of a request from one of the other 31 (non -Monks) land owners. Also, is this proactive step expected to recoup the costs (charge a fee for cost recovery) from these owners once they do submit requests for development? You are correct that private developers are usually required by the City to pay for the preparation of an EIR when one is warranted. When Staff first initiated (last March) revisions to the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance to address the Monks decision, we recommended the adoption of language that would (at that time) have allowed the owners of all 47 vacant lots in Zone 2 to pursue development; and we prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration to address the environmental impacts of such action. Staff recommended this course of action because none of the geologists that had analyzed the geology of Zone 2, including the late Dr. Ehlig and the Cotton Shires firm, had ever drawn any geological or geotechnical distinction between the Monks plaintiffs' 16 lots and the other 31 undeveloped lots in Zone 2. As such, it seemed to Staff to be a prudent step to forestall legal action by the owners of the non -Monks lots to include them within the scope of the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance revision at that time. Ultimately, concerns raised by both the Council and the public resulted in adoption of an Ordinance that only included the Monks plaintiffs lots and for which a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified. Page 1 of 2 M:\Projects\ZON2009-00409 (Zone 2 Moratorium Revisions)\REPLY_ cc meeting 2010 03-16 #11 zone 2 EI R.doc 03/16/10 5:52 PM Based upon direction of the Council in June 2009, Staff now proposes the second phase of this process that would include the 31 non -Monks lots. As discussed in tonight's Staff report, it is Staff's intention to try to recover at least some of the costs of preparing this EIR as the individual lots in Zone 2 are developed in the future. 2. Should the EIR uncover problems that relate to all 47 parcels would it be reasonable to have all property owners participate in the cost recovery when they apply for a project? Staff believes that, given the Monks decision, it is highly unlikely that the City will ever be able to recover any EIR-related costs from the future development of any of the 16 Monks plaintiffs' lot. However, it is possible that some reasonably -proportionate share of the EIR preparation costs might be passed on to the future developers of the 31 non -Monks lots in Zone 2, since they will directly benefit from it. As mentioned above, Staff intends to pursue the recovery of as much of these costs as may be possible. 3. The wide range of cost quotes submitted by the consulting firms is surprising (the highest and recommended firm is over twice the lowest bid). Also it is significant to read that the most common deficiency cited by staff is the lack of environmental issues contained in the bids. Considering these two issues together it seems that a revised RFP should be circulated citing in detail the expectations for more environmental issues to be addressed would probably yield a better quality of responses. Please comment. Staff circulated the RFP for this EIR to 24 consulting firms, and received 6 proposals, ranging in cost from roughly $93,000 to $187,000. All 6 firms submitted timely proposals that contained the basic information identified in the RFP. However, in reviewing the proposals, Staff found that not all of them were best suited to prepare the EIR for this project. Staff considered the comprehensiveness of each proposal; the firms' past experience with the City; the degree to which each proposal conveyed an understanding of the proposed project; and the proposed project budgets. After considering all of these factors, Staff believes that PCR Services Corporation's proposal best suits the City's needs. Staff does not believe that the re -circulation of the RFP is necessary or desirous because: 1) we do not anticipate that new proposals submitted by these same 6 firms—and any other new ones that might be submitted— would be appreciably better and/or cheaper than those that have already been submitted; and 2) that it would needlessly delay the full implementation the Court of Appeal's order in the Monks case and potentially expose the City to further liability. Page 2 of 2 M:\Projectts\ZON2009-00409 (Zone 2 Moratorium Revisions)\REPLY_cc meeting 2010 03-16 #11 zone 2 EIR.doc 03/16/10 5:52 PM LAWk,,. RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: MARCH 16, 2010 SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL LATE CORRESPONDENCE Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material 11 Email and attachment from Lowell Wedemeyer Respectfully submitted, Page 1 of 1 Carla Morreale From: carolynn@rpv.com Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 5:17 PM To: Carla Morreale; terit@rpvmcom Subject: Fw: City Council Agenda Item 11; Questions Posed to Geotechnical Panel Attachments: GeotechnicaIPanel QuestionsContrastedWithCityCouncilIssues 100316-REM.docx Sent from my B1ackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed From: "Lowell R. Wedemeyer" <lowell@transtalk.com> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:07:23 -0700 To: <CC@rpv.com>; <planning@rpv.com> Subject: City Council Agenda Item 11; Questions Posed to Geotechnical Panel Honorable City Council and Planning Director Rojas: I am appending a written statement concerning Agenda Item 11, contracting for preparation of an EIR re Zone 2 development applications. The appended memo concerns the wording of the task that is to be assigned to the panel of technical experts. I urge the City Council to explicitly limit the technical panel to objective, scientific issues and to explicitly reserve public policy questions. I urge that the Council revise the wording of the task assigned to the technical panel to avoid even an appearance that such public policy issues are being delegated to a non -elected technical panel. Lowell R. Wedemeyer 3/16/2010 / � Honorable City Council: Comment concerning award of a contract to a consultant to prepare an Environmental Impact Report concerning Applications for Development in Zone 2 (and possibly Zone also in Zone 1). R1 INANAARY The City Staff has stated that a geology and geotechnical panel selected to address the Zone 2 development issues will be tasked to opine whether there is "a reasonable probability of significant damage to persons or property if development is allowed" in Zone 2. The word "reasonable" should be deleted from the proposed charge to the technical panel, and the word "significant" should be replaced by "substantial". The terms "reasonable" and "significant" tend to confuse the objective, independent, scientific role of experts, on the one hand, and the public policy-making role of the City Council and Planning Commission, on the other hand. The City Council and Planning Commission should jealously retain the public policy determinations whether public fears of damage are "reasonable" and "significant" in light of the social utility of a proposed development. Such public policy determinations should not be delegated to non -elected, paid experts. The words "reasonable" and "significant" are not objective, scientific terms. Rather, these words inherently implicate public policy making. Technical experts inevitably will become embroiled in political issues if they are tasked to opine on such public policy questions. That will undermine the scientific experts' objectivity and impair the independence of their technical opinions. It also will impair the City's ability to defend City actions during judicial review if technical experts conflate scientific and public policy issues in supposedly scientific opinions. If the City Council nonetheless still wants to ask technical experts to opine on "reasonableness" and "significance" of feared damage arising from proposed development, then the experts' objective, scientific opinion should be distinctly labeled and segregated from their opinions as to "reasonableness" and "significance." If so segregated, then the City Council and Planning Commission can more readily reach their own policy determinations based on the objective science. A reviewing court then will be better able to distinguish the scientific foundation for a City action from the discretionary conclusions and decisions of the City Council. a �_' s DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY TECHNICAL EXPERTS AND BY ELECTED OFFICIALS. 1. The panel of geology, geological engineering, and geotechnical experts properly can be asked, "Is there an objective, scientific probability of s+gRifisait substantial damage to persons or property if development is allowed?" There are five, essential sub -questions for the technical experts: 1.1 Has sufficient scientific data been acquired to enable an objective, scientific response to question 1? If not, why not? (NOTE: If the answer is negative, that there is insufficient scientific data to support an opinion, then the City will be unable to prove that the proposed development will cause a nuisance.) 1.2 If the answer to question 1.1 is that sufficient scientific data has been acquired, then what is the scientific probability that each particular type of feared damage (a) will occur and (b) will be substantial? 1.3 What is the objective, scientific evidence supporting the answers to questions 1 and 1.2? 1.4 What is the scientific range of error, or range of confidence, in the scientific probability of each type and amount of damage identified in response to question 1.2? (NOTE: If this range of error in an answer is too great, then confidence in the answer may be too low to justify legal reliance by the City upon the stated probability. If a range of error cannot be scientifically established at all, then the probative value of the experts' answer may be too low to justify an affirmative answer to question 1. 1.) 1.5 What steps, if any, could be taken to acquire additional objective, scientific evidence either: (a) to enable an objective scientific answer if the answer to question 1.1 is negative, or (b) to narrow the scientific range of error, and improve the confidence, in the probability stated in answer to question 1.4. 1.6 Is it scientifically feasible to mitigate the feared damage? If so, how? (NOTE: This question 1.6 eventually must be answered in the Environmental Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration.) 2. The Planning Commission and City Council, not scientific experts, are the proper persons to answer the question, "If the proposed development is allowed, is the scientific probability that damage will occur significant and is it reasonable to incur such damage, when balanced against the anticipated social utility of the proposed development?" Question 2 also has subparts: 2.1 Does the social utility of the proposed development outweigh feared damage to persons or property? (NOTE: Damage may be feared without having evidence to prove that the fear is reasonable, or may be feared without scientific support and thus not be reasonably feared. In principle, the City Council could assume for the sake of analysis that feared damage will occur, and then determine that the social utility of a proposed development would outweigh the feared damage. In that event, there would be no nuisance and the proposed development should be allowed. If, on the other hand, the City Council cannot decide whether the social utility would outweigh feared but unproven damage, then the following question 2.2 concerning scientific justification for the fear must be answered.) 2.2. Is the fear of damage to persons or property legally "reasonable" in the sense that a scientific probability of occurrence can be established? (NOTE: See questions 1.1 and 1.2 above. The legal or political policy conclusion of "reasonableness" should be based upon scientific opinion, but that is not a scientific conclusion. This question whether a fear of damage is legally "reasonable" therefore should not be decided by non -elected experts. It should be decided by elected officials in the first instance, subject to judicial review.) 2.3 If a scientifically objective probability of damage can be established, so that the fear of damage is found to be legally reasonable, then can such damage "reasonably" be mitigated? (NOTE: See question 1.6 above. The scientific feasibility of mitigation must be answered in an Environmental Impact Report, or a Mitigated Negative 4 V� -6- Declaration. The "reasonableness" of the mitigation is a public policy decision to be made by the City Council, not by the technical panel.) 2.4 Should the proposed development be allowed because the social utility of the proposed development outweighs the damage, even if reasonably feared damage cannot reasonably be mitigated? (NOTE: This ultimate question can only be answered by the City Council when an Environmental Impact Report is finally certified. This ultimate question cannot be delegated to the expert technical panel.) Lowell R. Wedemeyer March 16, 2010. L IR RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: MARCH 16, 2010 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material 2 Emails from Dana Ireland regarding February 2, 2010 Minutes; Staff's Correction to February 16, 2010 Minutes 10 Email exchange between Mike and Louise Shipman and B.J. Patterson; Email from Mary Casaburi 11 Emails from: Cassie Jones 12 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Wolowicz; letter from Heather Richard 13 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Wolowicz; Revised Professional Services Agreement Respectfully submitted, &�& A� Carla Morreale From: Dana Ireland [mailto:iedygo@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 11:47 AM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Nantasket project minutes March 16 th meeting Gentlemen, The Nantasket project minutes from our Feb 2nd meeting our on your consent calendar for this evenings meeting. I am requesting that the item be pulled from the consent calender for the following clarification. During our meeting I was asked if I would accept a 10% reduction in the project. I agreed with the understanding that the reduction was in the total livable square footage. My review of the tape differs from staff who has imposed the condition that each house be reduced by 10% in the minutes. By requiring that each home be reduced by the same amount removes an element of design flexibility. It is my opinion that with flexibility comes better design. I hope that you will accept my request and discuss what was intended by the maker of the motion and the members who voted for it. I will clearly accept your decision either way I just hope to be able to further the designs so that each home is reduced by the appropriate amount to a cumulative total of a 10% reduction in livable square footage. Please feel free to call me should you require further clarification of my request at 310 462-1300 Thank You Dana Ireland 1 Seacove Drive Rancho Palos Verdes 310 462 1300 Ireland Miller Inc a Page 1 of 1 Carla Morreale From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 4:31 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: Nantasket project minutes March 16 th meeting From: Dana Ireland [mailto:iedygo@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 3:30 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Re: Nantasket project minutes March 16 th meeting Gentlemen, Based on some of your comments I thought I would provide an illustrative example of my request. Under staffs read the most that any one home would likely be reduced is by 10% Under my request a possible scenario could be that house 1 which has caused the most concern might be reduced by more than 10% and house 4 which has a bigger lot and raised little concern could be reduced by less than 10 % It is impossible at this moment to give you the precise percentages as we have not done the design work. But you should get the concept Thank you again for time and service to our community On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Dana Ireland <iedygo@gmail.com> wrote: Gentlemen, The Nantasket project minutes from our Feb 2nd meeting our on your consent calendar for this evenings meeting. I am requesting that the item be pulled from the consent calender for the following clarification. During our meeting I was asked if I would accept a 10% reduction in the project. I agreed with the understanding that the reduction was in the total livable square footage. My review of the tape differs from staff who has imposed the condition that each house be reduced by 10% in the minutes. By requiring that each home be reduced by the same amount removes an element of design flexibility. It is my opinion that with flexibility comes better design. I hope that you will accept my request and discuss what was intended by the maker of the motion and the members who voted for it. I will clearly accept your decision either way I just hope to be able to further the designs so that each home is reduced by the appropriate amount to a cumulative total of a 10% reduction in livable square footage. Please feel free to call me should you require further clarification of my request at 310 462-1300 Thank You Dana Ireland 1 Seacove Drive Rancho Palos Verdes 310 462 1300 Ireland Miller Inc Ireland Miller Inc 0 3/16/2010 Mayor Wolowicz called a brief recess from 9:05 P.M. to 9:22 P.M. Dr. Michael Brophy, President, Marymount College, stated that when Marymount College had shared its plans to offer a BA Degree in certain areas of study, they were confident that the change would not introduce any external impacts due to the following key operational factors which remain constant: the enrollment cap of 793; the number of student seats; the overall number of faculty and staff; the overall number of courses; and, the scheduling of classes for an enrollment of up to 793 students. He stated that he hoped the lengthy and legally adequate CEQA analysis before Council confirms that both the Baccalaureate Degree Programs and both of the site plans for the athletic fields and tennis courses introduce no significant new environmental impacts with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. He encouraged the Council's prompt scheduling of the final public hearing for the Marymount College Expansion Project. Don Davis, Burke Williams and Sorenson, legal counsel for Marymount College, stated that considering the traffic circulation section of the Draft Appendix D to the Final Environmental Impact Report, he opined that the City uses a very conservative methodology throughout the process, noting that he believed the project trips were overstated. He stated that the enrollment of the college will not change and the college virtually operates as a university at the current time. He noted that the City had added a significant number of forecast trips based on the expansion of the facility, which they believe is overstated, concluding that the EIR document is fully adequate. He noted that with the BA Program, the College would not actually reach the 250 enrollment cap proposed for the BA program for many years. He reported that regarding the parking issue and on -street parking, the College was adding 120 parking spaces to the project to address that issue. Mr. Davis stated that the traffic studies indicate that there is a level of service of "F" for failing at the PVDE and Miraleste Drive intersection and encouraged the City to proceed with the improvement at the intersection through its Capital Improvement Program. He commented that out of the two alternatives, the preference of the College was for Alternative D-2 over Alternative D-1 for the athletic fields. Lois Karp, CCC/ME, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that the CCC/ME's concern with the BA Program was that there would be more demand for more teachers, employees, traffic and parking. She reported that Appendix D confirmed the following significant increase in trips to the campus: the Draft EIR stated that the daily trips to the campus were 1479; the Final EIR indicated that there were 1636 trips; and, with the four-year degree there were 1931 trips. She noted that the consultant suggested that there should be carpools and shuttle busses to mitigate the parking problems and additional trips, but the DEIR indicated that additional shuttle busses to mitigate peak hour traffic were infeasible. She reported that 45 carpool spaces were mandated as a mitigation in 1990 when the Student Union was added, but they were never created so they CCC/ME does not have confidence that carpooling will be enforced to reduce the traffic impacts. Draft City Council Minutes February 16, 2010 Page 9 of 12 --Original Message ----- From: Mike and Louise [mailto:MandLinRPV@msn.com] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 9:43 PM To: gregp@rpv.com; stevew@rpv.com; tom.long@rpv.com; Brian.Campbell@rpv.com; anthony.Misetich@rpv.com; douglas.stern@cox.net; mjcasaburi@aol.com; joelr@rpv.com; BJ Patterson Cc: L. Bilski; EZStevens; Mary Casaburi; Uday Patil; jessica; Jabe Kahnke Subject: Re: Extensiton of Trump Temporary Use Permit for Driving Range Thank you Bi... couldn't have expressed it better! We concur!!! M&L 3948 Admirable Dr. RPV 90275 ----- Original Message ----- From: BJ Patterson <mailto:bj.patterson@cox.net> To: gregp@rpv,.com stevew@rpv.com ; tom.long@rpv.com ; Brian.Campbell@rpv.com anthony.Misetich@rpv.com douglas.stern@cox.net ; mjcasaburi@aol.com joelr@rpv.com Cc: L. Bilski <mailto:ldb910@intergate.com> EZStevens <mailto:erstevens@cox.net> ; Mary Casaburi <mailto:MJCasaburi@aol.com> ; Uday Patil <mailto:globus@pacbell.net> ; Jessica <mailto:jessboop@cox.net> ; Mike and Louise <mailto:MandLinRPV@msn.com> ; Jabe Kahnke <mailto:JKahnke@apd.lacounty.gov> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 8:09 PM Subject: Extensiton of Trump Temporary Use Permit for Driving Range Dear Planning Department and City Council, I understand that The Trump Organization is again requesting permission to plant vegetation along the western edge of the driving range. We live at 3961 PV Dr. S, directly across PV Dr from the driving range. We are astonished that the issue of Trump planting vegetation to block views of the PBC homes is once again up for debate. It is our understanding that this was resolved well over a year ago, after intense discussion, probably hundreds of emails, several newspaper articles, and acrimonious comments from both sides, and in the end, Trump was told (I thought) that they needed to remove the vegetation that they had already planted, flying in the face of City regulation. I would appreciate knowing why this is up for debate once again? This reminds me very much of parenting a teenager.... one needs to brace oneself for the onslaught and constant verbal assaults on the part of the child in an attempt to wear the parent down. If it was decided earlier that no vegetation should be planted there, what does Trump believe has changed in the intervening time that would now make it acceptable to plant vegetation? I am amazed at the attitude that allows them to even approach this. In addition to the issue of planting vegetation along the eastern border of the PBC, I would like to bring to your attention the issue of vegetation along the oceanside berm. Nothing is to grow above the berm, or so I understand. I would direct your attention to the VERY LARGE tree that interrupts my ocean view. Why is this tree still there? It is clearly growing well above the berm. I would invite any of you to my home to see the extent of the damage this does to my view, but more importantly, I would note that Trump has been allowed to violate this rule (statute, law???) for at least a couple years. Why? I have written many times before to the Council and other City staff on this particular issue (PBC vegetation) and other issues, all specifically related to view preservation. And I keep going back to this one basic tenet: We have view preservation rules in place in this city. Why am I and other citizens constantly and consistently in the position of having to defend our rights to enjoy the views supposedly protected by the City? I appreciate the opportunity to once again express my concern over this problem. Sincerely, BJ Patterson. C;? 0f -Original Message ----- From: mjcasaburi@aol.com (mailto:mjcasaburi@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 5:00 PM To: joelr@rpv.com; gregp@rpv.com; stevew@rpv.com; tom.long@rpv.com; Brian.Campbell@rpv.com; anthony.Misetich@rpv.com; douglas.stern@cox.net Subject: Extensiton of Trump Temporary Use Permit for Driving Range Dear Planning Department and City Council, I understand that The Trump Organization is again requesting the ability to plant vegetation along the western edge of the driving range. I also understand that this (vegetation) is not specifically on the agenda for the March 16th Council Meeting. The purpose of the plantings would be to hide the view of homes in the Portuguese Bend development from those on the driving range. Below are my thoughts on the matter. 1. Again. I can't believe we're back to this issue again. This issue has been addressed before. The (planted without approval) ficus trees were ordered removed; and were, finally, removed from the edge of the raised area on the western end of the driving range and the double row of trees that marched along the fence next to the Portuguese Bend Club. The trees were there after planted and removed from at least one other area on the property. 2. Homes predate development. The property was purchased and developed by the previous owner, and then bought by The Trump Organization, with all the Portuguese Bend homes in place. The homes predate the development by years. They are an existing feature just as the cliffs and ocean are on the south. Will there need to be a buffer around the La Rotunda Condos? And how about screening off PVDS .. it is noisy and has some ugly cars ... even trucks ... going by. The homes of the PBC have long enjoyed their views over the property that has become the driving range. For some of the homes on the eastern side, the view east (over the driving range) is their primary view ... and and provides some ocean view. That should not be taken away. 3. Views. I am very concerned about the views for EVERYONE (those driving through RPV, neighbors, etc). I have read about RPV having the longest stretch of ocean view road of any city in California. That would be PVDS - PVDW. I'm afraid that cannot be true anymore with the encroachment of so many buildings and, most of all, foliage ... even 'low growing' foliage on the street center strip blocks views (like westbound just west of the Terranea turn in). I urge you to drive PVDS - PVDW from San Pedro to PVE, and back again, and try to look at the ocean all the way. You will see some lovely views .. but with many interruptions. Allowing the planting of trees .. or even tall shrubbery will impact that view even more. Since the ficus tree issue, the PBC homeowners have cut down some tall trees and trimmed others, so that the present view through the PBC is better than it has been in years. 4. Compatibility. This is a semi arid climate. If any vegetation is approved for planting on the Trump property, it should be compatible with the climate ... and preferably native to the area. The ficus trees, for example (a bad example) were water thirsty, attracted wasps, and had very shallow troublesome root systems. Should any plants be approved for (low) landscaping - please make them water wise and low -growing. / " �- ;1, /0. 5. Berm. Back in 2005, the driving range was approved. At that time, the approval stated that the southerly berm, parallel to the street & ocean would be the highest visible entity. No vegetation would be allowed to grow taller than that berm. Well, guess what, there is a tree ocean ward of the berm that is significantly higher. And the 15:00 shadow' of smaller plants either growing on the ocean side of the berm, or growing on the flatter land ocean ward of the berm ... is more like several days beard now. Please stick with the previous rulings, preserve the views for the public & homeowners, and encourage climate appropriate vegetation for our city. Thank you, Mary Casaburi a n F a- From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 9:33 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: EIR Consultant Staff Report Attachments: EIR Consultant Staff Report.doc From: cassiej@aol.com [mailto:cassiej@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 9:25 AM To: k.olson@cox.net; CC@rpv.com Subject: EIR Consultant Staff Report I have attached a very short letter regarding tonight's agenda item. It is a request to correct some factual information in the staff report. Cassie Jones 3/16/2010 3/16/2010 Re: Zone 2 EIR Contract and Budget Adjustment March 16, staff report Dear City Council, I am writing as a member of the Portuguese Bend Community Association with respect to the proposed EIR for the Zone 2 area. I am pleased and surprised that the reports acknowledges the development will occur in a manner consistent with the Portuguese Bend Community Association's private architectural standards. I would like to correct an error in the staff report, however, and refer you to the Portuguese Bend Community Association for details. The minimum setbacks mentioned on Page 5 are not consistent with the actual setbacks in the standards. It would be smart to coordinate the future development assumptions with the Association's standards so as not to contradict each other and cause confusion as to which applies. Contacting the PBCA Board or Architectural Committee could be done before going down this road to confusion. Their secretary can be reached at k.olson@cox.net. Thanks, Cassie Jones C2 0 �-- RANCHO PALOS VERDES Im4mo77_1�I�l�l►�il TO: Tom Odom and Katie Howe FROM: Steve Wolowicz CC: Carolyn Lehr DATE: March 15, 2010 SUBJECT: cc meeting 3-16-10 item #12 rental fees QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Tom and Katie, I have a few questions on this item. Thanks, Steve Just to summarize, the fees are: Existing City share $ 420 $ 750 Trump fees 165 165 Total $ 585 $ 915 Proposed City share $ 753 $ 1,083 Trump fees 610 610 Total $ 1,363 $ 1,693 Increase - amount City share $ 333 $ 333 Trump fees 445 445 Total $ 778 $ 778 Increase - percent City share 79% 44% Trump fees 270% 270% Total 133% 85% 1. What are the City's comparable fees at PVIC? The amphitheatre at PVIC for rentals are $330/hr for residents and $562 for nonresidents however this for a six hour or 10 hour block of time versus for Page 1 of 2 C.\WINN11Profi1es\tent\Loca1 SettingsWemporary Internet Files\OLKB\responsesfounderspark.doc v Founders Park which is a 3 hour block of time. PVIC fees also depend on season and day of the week. 2. On page 12-2, first paragraph under alternatives 1. What is the underlying "... decreased involvement of the Trump staff..."? The previous agreement required Trump manage the rentals which included application processing, meeting with applicant, provided facility walk through, coordinating all logistical and event planning activities. The new agreement has city staff providing application processing, planning and logistical activities with Trump staff providing access to facilities day of event services such as valet parking and coordination with city staff in advance and the day of the park rental. 3. Are there any other vendor contracts with the city that allow insurance coverage under $5 million? Typically vendor contracts of this nature in the recreation department are for $1 million insurance coverage and discussions with Trump and City Attorney indicated that $5 million for this type of activity was excessive. ($5 million insurance coverage costs around $30,000 annually). Vendors for recent Whale of a Day event provided $1 million in coverage. 4. What is required for Trump catering staff (isn't that an option to the user)? The Trump catering staff designation is a little misleading. It is just the staff that the General Manager has delegated to be the point of contact and coordinate with city staff in scheduling of events, planning, etc. The catering staff was the coordinator in the previous agreement when Trump managed all aspects. 5. What were the total events in 2009 to generate the $15,500 in revenues? The total of rentals for 2009 was 23; 17 non-residents and 6 residents. Page 2of2 C:\WINNTProfiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\responsesfounderspark.doc 03/16/10 7:51 March 12, 2010 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 30940 lia-wthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Council Members, My name is I -leather Richw*d, and am writinp- to, the council to express my desire to have my wedding ceremony at Founders Park. I scheduled my wedding reception at Trump National Golf Club last December, and was originally offered. Founders Park as an option for our ceremony site. My fiancd and, I,fell in love with the location, and looked the reception for November 6"', 20 10. We were informed that there was a contractual issue betweenTrump National and the City of'Palos Verdes regarding Founders Park, and that we would have to wait until January IS (11 to sign the contTact for rental of the park. We have been patiently waiting 6or the outcome of the issue, and have put our plans on hold until it is resolved. We are very anxious about the outcome of the council me cting an March 16"'.1 as we would like to move forward with our wedding plans soon. I am originally from as small bayou to,,Nm in coastal Louisiana, and moved, here three months after hurricane Katrina with my flaned. Most of our family has never had the opportunity to visit California, and we movant for them to experience the best that our state has to offer for our wedding. f would like to express my desire for the council to approve the continued use of Founders Park for weddings, and to consider upholding the agreement that TrUnIp National an,d the: City Council hood prepared for this continued use. As I am sure you are aware, Rancho Palos Verdes is one of the most beautiful locations in southern California. I ask that, youconsider allowing others to share its beautiflil coast for their special day. Sincerely, Heaffier Richard Page 1 of 2 From: Ron Dragoo [rond@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 4:02 PM To: 'Steve Wolowicz; 'Ray Holland' Cc: 'Carolyn Lehr'; 'Carla Morreale; 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: RE: cc meeting 3-16-10 item #13 canyon stabilization project Mayor Wolowicz, In response to your questions regarding item #13 Canyon Stabilization Project, Public Works offers the following responses: Question 1 What were the amounts of the other bids? Public Works Response - The proposals submitted were in response to the City's Request for Proposals (RFP). The solicitation was performance based in order to obtain the best possible consultant team for the project. The consultant selection was based on experience on similar projects, the team's knowledge of the geology in the area and understanding of the scope and issues and challenges related to this canyon. Cost proposal are not considered in selecting consultants, rather the cost is negotiated after the consultant is selected. The fee for services associated with this contract is inline with staff estimates and budgeted funds. Question 2 Is it common for these projects to have a 20% contingency? Public Works Response - Staff believes that given the extent of geological, environmental and other unknowns a 20% contingency is appropriate for this project. Contingency funds will only be used if required. The contingency is intended to help minimize delays. Question 3 Is there a nexus between the previous (upper San Ramon canyon) and this project? Public Works Response - No. The upper San Ramon Canyon repair was in response to a localized landslide to the north of this project. Question 4 Are there any possible ARRA sources for this work? Public Works Response - The ARRA funds are generally reserved for "shovel ready" projects. Projects may be permitted to have a design component, but not be exclusive for the design as in this case. Under the best of circumstances, this project will take two to three years to get to construction, but given environmental concerns is likely to take more time than that. It is important to note that staff is aggressively pursuing funding opportunities through the reauthorization of SAFTEA-LU, Federal Fiscal Year 2011 Appropriations and Water Resources Development Act funds. Best regards, Ron Dragoo, P.E. Senior Engineer City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5253 Office (310) 544-5292 FAX From: Steve Wolowicz [mailto:stevew@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 2:26 PM 3/16/2010 �, Page 2 of 2 To: 'Ray Holland'; 'Ron Dragoo' Cc: 'Carolyn Lehr' Subject: cc meeting 3-16-10 item #13 canyon stabilization project Ray and Ron, Attached a several questions on this project. Thanks, Steve Steve Wolowicz Mayor Rancho Palos Verdes Phone 310-378-9911 email -- stevew@rpv.com 3/16/2010 fL C3 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 16th day of March 2010, by and between CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and Harris and Associates hereafter referred to as "CONSULTANT". IN CONSIDERATION of the covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.1 Proiect Description The Project is described as follows: PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF THE SAN RAMON STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM 1.2 Description of Services CONSULTANT shall perform Services described in the CONSULTANT'S scope of work and proposal. The scope of work and proposal are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.3 Schedule of Work Upon receipt of written Notice to Proceed from the CITY, CONSULTANT shall perform with due diligence the services requested by the CITY and agreed on by CONSULTANT. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall CONSULTANT be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of CITY to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove CONSULTANT'S work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by CITY, other contractors, or governmental agencies, or any other delays beyond CONSULTANT'S control or without CONSULTANT'S fault. ARTICLE 2 COMPENSATION 2.1 Fee (a) CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT a not to exceed amount of $506,300 for the professional services described in Section 1.2 and as further described in Exhibit "A". (b) CITY may request additional specified work under this Agreement. All such work must be authorized in writing by the Director of Public Works prior to commencement. Page 1 of 8 2.2 Payment Address All payments due CONSULTANT Harris and Associates Attn: Randall Berry 34 Executive Park, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92614-4705 2.3 Terms of Compensation CONSULTANT will submit invoices monthly for the percentage of work completed in the previous month. CITY agrees to pay all undisputed invoice amounts within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. CITY agrees to use its best efforts to notify CONSULTANT of any disputed invoice amounts or claimed completion percentages within ten (10) days of the receipt of each invoice. However, CITY's failure to timely notify CONSULTANT of a disputed amount of claimed completion percentage shall not be deemed a waiver of CITY's right to challenge such amount or percentage. Additionally, in the event CITY fails to pay any undisputed amounts due CONSULTANT within forty-five (45) days after invoices are received by CITY then CITY agrees that CONSULTANT shall have the right to consider said default a total breach of this Agreement and be terminated by CONSULTANT without liability to CONSULTANT upon ten (10) working days advance written notice. 2.4 Additional Services CITY may request in writing that CONSULTANT perform additional services not covered by Section 1.2 of this Agreement and Exhibit "A," and CONSULTANT shall perform such services and will be paid for such additional services in accordance with CONSULTANT'S current standard schedule of hourly rates. The current schedule of hourly rates shall be in effect through the end of this project or December 31, 2011, whichever occurs first. ARTICLE 3 INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE 3.1 Indemnification CONSULTANT will defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its Boards and its officers, employees and agents (collectively "CITY"), against any claim, loss or liability that arises because of the sole or primary negligence or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its agents, officers, directors or employees, in performing any of the services under this Agreement. This includes, but is not limited to, claims, suits and liabilities for bodily injury, death or property damage to any individual or entity, including the officers, agents or employees or contractors of the CONSULTANT. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to claims to the extent arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY and its officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers Page 2of8 3.2 General Liability CONSULTANT shall at all times during the term of the Agreement carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect, a policy or policies of Commercial General Liability Insurance, with minimum limits of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for each occurrence and in the aggregate, combined single limit, against any personal injury, death, loss or damage resulting from the wrongful or negligent acts by CONSULTANT. Said policy or policies shall be issued by an insurer admitted to do business in the State of California and rated in Best's Insurance Guide with a rating of A VII or better. 3.3 Professional Liability CONSULTANT shall at all times during the term of this Agreement, carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect a policy or policies of professional liability insurance with a minimum limit of one million ($1,000,000.00) dollars. Said policy or policies shall be issued by an insurer admitted to do business in the State of California and rated in Best's Insurance Guide with a rating of A VII or better. 3.4 Automobile Liability CONSULTANT shall at all times during the term of this Agreement obtains, maintain and keep in full force and effect a policy or policies of Automobile Liability Insurance with minimum limit of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and in the aggregate. 3.5 Worker's Compensation CONSULTANT agrees to maintain in force at all times during the performance of work under this Agreement worker's compensation insurance as required by the law. CONSULTANT shall require any subcontractor similarly to provide such compensation insurance for their respective employees. 3.6 Notice of Cancellation A. All insurance policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be canceled by the insurance carrier without thirty (30) days prior written notice to CITY. CONSULTANT agrees that it will not cancel or reduce said insurance coverage. B. CONSULTANT agrees that if it does not keep the aforesaid insurance in full force and effect, CITY may either immediately terminate this Agreement or, if insurance is available at a reasonable cost, CITY may take out the necessary insurance and pay, at CONSULTANT's expense, the premium thereon. 3.7 Certificate of Insurance At all times during the term of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall maintain on file with the CITY Clerk a certificate of insurance showing that the aforesaid Page 3of8 policies are in effect in the required amounts. The commercial general liability and professional liability policy or policies shall contain endorsements naming the CITY, its officers, agents and employees as additional insured. 3.8 Primary Coverage The insurance provided by CONSULTANT shall be primary to any coverage available to City. The insurance policies (other than workers' compensation and professional liability) shall include provisions for waiver of subrogation. 3.9 No Rights Created for Third -Party Beneficiary This Agreement shall not be construed to be for the benefit of any third party or parties, and no third party or parties shall have any claim or right of action under this Agreement for any cause whatsoever against CONSULTANT or CITY Kamm 11:4 :4 Al L4 Y.111 I Lei► 4.1 Termination of Agreement (a) This Agreement may be terminated at any time, with or without cause, by either party upon sixty (60) days prior written notice. Notice shall be deemed served upon deposit in the United States Mail of a certified or registered letter, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the other party, or upon personal service of such notice to the other party, at the address set forth in Article 6.13. (b) In the event of termination or cancellation of this Agreement by CONSULTANT or CITY, due to no fault or failure of performance by CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall be paid compensation for all services performed by CONSULTANT, in an amount to be determined as follows: for work done in accordance with all of the terms and provisions of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall be paid an amount equal to the percentage of services performed prior to the effective date of termination or cancellation in accordance with the work items; provided, in no event shall the amount of money paid under the foregoing provisions of this paragraph exceed the amount which would have been paid to CONSULTANT for the full performance of the services described in Article 2.1. ARTICLE 5 OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS 5.1 Ownership of Documents and Work Product All plans, specifications, reports and other design documents prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement are instruments of service, which shall be deemed the property of the CITY. CITY acknowledges and agrees that all plans, specifications, reports and other design documents prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement shall be used exclusively on this Project and shall not be Page 4 of 8 used for any other work without the written consent of CONSULTANT. In the event CITY and CONSULTANT permit the reuse or other use of the plans, specifications, reports or other design documents, CITY shall require the party using them to indemnify and hold harmless CITY and CONSULTANT regarding such reuse or other use, and CITY shall require the party using them to eliminate any and all references to CONSULTANT from the plans, CONSULTANT on a computer, CONSULTANT shall prepare such document in a specifications, reports and other design documents. If a document is prepared by Microsoft® Word 97 SR -2 or lower format; in addition, CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with said document both in a printed format and an electronic format on compact disk (CD). ARTICLE 6 GENERAL PROVISIONS 6.1 Representation A CITY representative shall be designated by the City Manager, and a CONSULTANT representative shall be designated by CONSULTANT as the primary contact person for each party regarding performance of this Agreement. 6.2 Fair Employment Practices/Equal Opportunity Acts In the performance of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California Fair Employment Practices Act (California Government Code Sections 12940-48) and the applicable equal employment provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 200e-217), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. § 11200, et sea.). 6.3 Personnel CONSULTANT represents that it has, or shall secure at its own expense, all personnel required to perform CONSULTANT's services under this Agreement. Any person who performs engineering services pursuant to this Agreement shall be licensed as a Civil Engineer by the State of California and in good standing. CONSULTANT shall make reasonable efforts to maintain the continuity of CONSULTANT's staff who are assigned to perform the services hereunder and shall obtain the approval of the Director of Public Works of all proposed staff members who will perform such services. CONSULTANT may associate with or employ associates or sub consultants in the performance of its services under this Agreement, but at all times shall be responsible for their services. 6.4 Conflicts of Interest CONSULTANT agrees not to accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement or within twelve (12) months after completion of the work under this Agreement which is or may likely make CONSULTANT "financially interested" (as provided in California Government Code Section 1090 and 87100) in any decisions made by CITY on any matter in connection with which CONSULTANT has been retained pursuant to this Agreement. Page 5 of 8 6.5 Legal Action (a) Should either party to this Agreement bring legal action against the other, the case shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in Los Angeles County, California, and the party prevailing in such action shall be entitled to recover its costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees, which shall be fixed by the judge hearing the case, and such fee shall be included in the judgment. (b) Should any legal action about the Project between CITY and a party other than CONSULTANT require the testimony of CONSULTANT when there is no allegation that CONSULTANT was negligent, CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for its testimony and preparation to testify at the hourly rates in effect at the time of such testimony. 6.6 Assignment This Agreement shall not be assignable by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. Notwithstanding the above, CONSULTANT may use the services of persons and entities not in CONSULTANT'S direct employ, when it is appropriate and customary to do so. Such persons and entities include, but are not necessarily limited to, surveyors, specialized consultants, and testing laboratories. CONSULTANT'S use of subcontractors for additional services shall not be unreasonably restricted by the CITY provided CONSULTANT notifies the CITY in advance. 6.7 Independent Contractor CONSULTANT is and shall at all times remain, as to the CITY, a wholly independent CONTRACTOR. Neither the CITY nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of CONSULTANT or any of the CONSULTANT's employees, except as herein set forth. CONSULTANT expressly warrants not to, at any time or in any manner, represent that it, or any of its agents, servants or employees, are in any manner agents, servants or employees of CITY, it being distinctly understood that CONSULTANT is, and shall at all times remain to CITY, a wholly independent contractor and CONSULTANT's obligations to CITY are solely such as are prescribed by this Agreement. 6.8 Hazardous Materials Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, CONSULTANT and its sub consultants and/or contractors shall have no responsibility for the discovery, presence, handling, removal or disposal of, or exposure of persons to hazardous materials in any form at the site of the Project. Page 6 of 8 6.9 Titles The titles used in this Agreement are for general reference only and are not part of the Agreement. 6.10 Extent of Agreement This Agreement represents the entire and integrated Agreement between CITY and CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a subsequent written agreement signed by both parties. 6.11 Construction In the event of any asserted ambiguity in, or dispute regarding the interpretation of any matter herein, the interpretation of this Agreement shall not be resolved by any rules of interpretation providing for interpretation against the party who causes the uncertainty to exist or against the party who drafted the Agreement or who drafted that portion of the Agreement. 6.12 Severability If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 6.13 Notices All notices pertaining to this Agreement shall be in writing and addressed as follows: If to CONSULTANT: HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES 34 Executive Park, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92614-4705 ATTENTION: Randall Berry If to CITY: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ATTN: RAY HOLLAND Interim Public Works Director 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Page 7 of 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. Dated: Dated: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Harris & Associates BY: Title M Title CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES A Municipal Corporation BY: MAYOR City of Rancho Palos Verdes Page 8 of 8