20110201 Late CorrespondenceCARLA MORREALE,CITY CLERK
2<)/}
---++I--Im ~z.L~0i~D~~~
<\:J1..'J~y~_~~IJJ~S~~
;\Kf'v Cb ~~wt4_'_~-=-=~~"Z<3_/_)_
Ij
. !
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
FEBRUARY 1,2011
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
3
5
11
14
Description of Material
Daily Breeze article dated 1/26/11
Revised agreement and attachments
Letters from:Robert Douglas;Jim Knight;Email from Cassie
Jones;Fax from Richardson &Harman
Answers to questions posed by Councilman Wolowicz
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Carla Morreale
**PLEASE NOTE:Materials attached after the color page were submitted through
Monday,January 31,2011**.
W:\AGENDA\2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\20110201 additions revisions to agenda.doc
Palos Verdes Peninsula school board to discuss Peninsula High stadium lighting -The Da...Page I of I
Palos Verdes Peninsula
school board to discuss
Peninsula High stadium
lighting
By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer
Posted:01/26/201106:34:10 PM PST
Updated:01/26/2011 06:44:45 PM PST
The Palos Verdes Peninsula school board tonight
will again turn to the controversial issue of a
proposal for stadium lighting at a local high
school.
Superintendent Walker Williams said he intends
to clarify the board's action last summer that
allowed a group of parents and alumni to raise
funds for a stadium lights plan at Palos Verdes
Peninsula High in Rolling Hills Estates.
Following a fundraising mailer recently sent out
by the committee backing the lighting plan,
Williams said he has received letters from
concerned citizens who live around the school.
The proposal has not yet received school board
approval,but the panel did vote to let the
committee move forward with fundraising.
A vote on the lighting plan itself has not yet
been scheduled,and the board is not set to take
any action tonight.
Advertisement
Williams also will discuss budget cuts that the
Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District
could face in the coming school year.
The 6:30 p.m.meeting is at 375 Via Almar,Palos
Verdes Estates.
-Melissa Pamer
,
"
DIRECT\'.
I o~U 3
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_I7208594 1/27/2011
Palos Verdes Peninsula USD :Review of Board Action Related to the Palos Verdes Penin...Page 1 of 1
Palos Verdes Peninsula
USD Meeting:Regular Meeting:O.Information
Created:January 27,2011 at 08:36 AM
1.Review of Board Action Related to the Palos Verdes
Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee
Project
January 27,2011
Status:
Quick Summary /Recommended Action
Presented as an information item.
Current Considerations
Staff will re-state and clarify action taken at the July 22,2010,Board of Education meeting
that authorized the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee
to raise limited funds in order to develop necessary plans,documentation,and estimated
costs for the installation of stadium lights at Palos Verdes Peninsula High School.
Associated File Attachments
~ExhiJ;>jt A :Board_Polic-U2..9.QJ-/.Capital Cam..PQignsLPLQject :Jaciliti~_$._(ELLes)
i~b::::,ExhJbltJ2_=-..Ad mjDjstrqt1){~..Reg.ulgtion 32QQ,.l,Capit91..campgjgnslPr.QJecl.:_E9.cllities
(Files)
http://pvpusd.csbaagendaonline.net/cgi-bin/WebObjects/pvpusd-eAgenda.woa/wo/21.0.7 .1...1127/2011
Palos Verdes Peninsula USD
Board Policy
Capital Cam paigns/Project-Facilities
BP 3290.1
Business and Noninstructional Operations
The Board of Education recognizes that members of individual school communities may wish to
organize capital campaigns to raise funds to build or modify facilities for their respective
schools.Capital campaigns are defined as any project for which funds are specifically raised
and that require approval from the Division of the State Architect (DSA).
While the Board is supportive of such activities,and welcomes the interest and participation of
members of the school community,it recognizes that these activities may not be the primary
function of the school or district.Even though these fundraising activities are independent of
the school and district,they are governed by all applicable provisions of the Education Code as
well as the policies and administrative regulations of the district.
While greatly appreciating suitable donations,the Board discourages any gift(s),which may
directly or indirectly impair its commitment to providing equal educational opportunities for all
students.
Organizers of capital campaigns shall be especially careful not to seek advantages for the
activities they support if those advantages might be detrimental to other school/district programs
and or support groups,including the PTA and Peninsula Education Foundation.In order to
protect the district and its programs,the Superintendent with approval of the Board,shall
establish appropriate controls for activities related to fundraising for capital campaigns/projects.
Any fundraising by a school connected organization for a facilities related project must be
approved by the Board prior to the initiation of fundraising activities.
Policy PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
adopted:June 29,2006 Palos Verdes Estates,California
Palos Verdes Peninsula USD
Administrative Regulation
Capital Cam paigns/Project-Facilities
AR 3290.1
Business and Noninstructional Operations
Any school connected organization whose purpose is to raise funds to build or modify facilities
at a school site or on any other district property shall comply with the following guidelines.
1.Prior to initiating fundraising activities for a capital campaign/project,the school
organization and/or principal shall provide the Superintendent or designee with the following
information regarding the committee and conceptual project:
a.The name of the organization
b.The names,addresses,phone numbers of all the officers and committee members
c.A description of the organization's purpose,proposed project(s),educational purpose of
the project,how the project falls within the overall educational objectives of the district,and
estimated cost ofproject(s).
d.A specific time line and list of objectives
e.The name of the bank where organization accounts will be located and the names of those
authorized to withdraw funds and/or transfer funds to the district.
f.Recent financial information (Le.budget and bank statements)about the organization.
g.A description of the organization's fundraising plans
h.A plan for funds that are raised but not spent
I.Proof of insurance
2.After receipt of the above information,the Superintendent or designee and/or the
Committee may submit a proposal to the Board for authorization to raise limited funds in order
to develop the necessary plans,documentation,and estimated costs for the project.All plans
shall be developed/designed by architects and engineers experienced with public schools
projects.
3.The district,at anytime at its sole discretion,shall reconfirm the estimated costs and
timeline of the project with a district approved construction management firm and/or by a firm
that has known and specialized experience in estimating school construction costs.Any costs
incurred by the district shall be reimbursed by the capital campaign.
4.Architectural plans,prior to being presented to the Division of State Architect (DSA),
shall first be presented to the Board of Education for approval.Such plans shall first be
reviewed by a Board approved Architect,familiar with DSA requirements.
5.After receipt of the above information,the Superintendent or designee may present the
proposed project(s)to the Board for initial approval if he/she determines:
a.That there is an educational need for the project
b.The proposal is realistic in terms of scope of work/project,proposed timelines and cost,
including the on-going cost of maintaining the facility.
c.The estimated cost for the project is accurate as verified by a firm that has known and
specialized experience in estimating school construction costs.The cost of this report will be a
part of the proposed budget.This includes the cost of district staff to properly evaluate,
supervise,and manage the project,all related soft costs,indirect costs,and 15 percent in
contingency costs.The project budget must also include the cost of a Board approved
construction management firm that will provide management and oversight to the project.
d.That there are alternative plans if the financial target is not reached
e.The project will not interfere with other district programs or fundraising projects that
have received prior approval from the Board.
6.If the project receives initial approval from the Board,the school organization may begin
raising funds to support the project.The committee shall provide the Board and the
Superintendent or designee with written updates monthly regarding:
a.Upcoming fundraising activities
b.Progress report on meeting financial target
c.Architectural plans and changes
7.Once the project receives approval from the Division of the State Architect,the principal
and/or committee shall ask the Board for approval for the district to begin the bidding process.
The principal and/or the committee must also verify that there is an appropriate amount of funds
for the project deposited in the bank or county Treasury based on a current (within the last three
months)construction cost estimate of the project and all the other associated costs as identified
in 5c.
8.After the bid process closes,the Superintendent or designee shall once again verify that
the school organization has the necessary funds,including 15 percent in contingency costs and
other associated costs as identified in 5c,to complete the project.Once verified,the
Superintendent will make a final recommendation to the Board regarding the proposed project.
Regulation
approved:
revised:
PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
June 29,2006 Palos Verdes Estates,California
October 12,2006
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AGREEMENT FOR
HESSE AND RYAN PARKS ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS
THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement")is made and entered this __day of ,2011,
by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,hereinafter referred to as "City"and
America West Landscape,Inc.,hereinafter referred to as "Contractor."
NOW,THEREFORE,the parties hereto do agree as follows:
1.Scope of Services.City hereby employs Contractor to perform the work and provide the
services and materials for the project identified as HESSE AND RYAN PARKS ATHLETIC FIELD
IMPROVEMENTS,as described in these Plans and Specifications,attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference,including miscellaneous appurtenant work.Such work shall be performed in a
good and workmanlike manner,under the terms as stated herein and in these Plans and Specifications.
Such work shall also be performed in accordance with the 2009 edition of the Joint Cooperative
Committee,Southern California Chapters of the American Public Works Association and the Associated
General Contractors of America document,including the 2011 Cumulative Supplement,collectively
entitled "Standard Specifications,"which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.In
the event of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and any of the above-referenced
documents,the terms of this Agreement shall be controlling.
2.Compensation.In consideration of the services rendered hereunder,Contractor shall be
paid a not to exceed amount of four hundred and forty-six thousand,seven hundred and eighty-four
dollars and nine cents ($446,784.09)in accordance with the prices as submitted in Contractor's Proposal,
attached hereto and incorporated herein ..The City shall compensate Contractor as stated in the Plans and
Specifications.
3.Payments.City shall make payments within thirty (30)days after receipt of an undisputed
and properly submitted payment request from Contractor.City shall return to Contractor any payment
request determined not to be a proper payment request as soon as practicable,but not later than seven (7)
days after receipt,and shall explain in writing the reasons why the payment request is not proper.The
City shall withhold not less than ten percent (10%)of the Agreement price until final completion and
acceptance of the Project.However,at any time after fifty percent (50%)of the work has been completed,
if the City Council of the City finds that satisfactory progress is being made,it may,at its discretion,
make any of the remaining progress payments in full for actual work completed.
4.Time.Upon receipt of written Notice to Proceed from the City,Contractor shall perform
with due diligence the services requested by the City and agreed on by Contractor.Time is of the essence
in this Agreement.
5.Unresolved Disputes.In the event that a dispute arises between the City and Contractor
regarding whether the conditions materially differ,involve hazardous waste,or cause a decrease or
increase in Contractor's cost of or time required for performance of any part of the work,Contractor shall
not be excused from any scheduled completion date provided for by the Agreement,but shall proceed
with all work to be performed under the Agreement.Contractor shall retain any and all rights provided
that pertain to the resolution of disputes and protests between the parties.In the event of any dispute or
controversy with the City over any matter whatsoever,Contractor shall not cause any delay or cessation
in or of work,but shall proceed with the performance of the work in dispute.This includes disputed time
extension requests and prices for changes.The disputed work will be categorized as an "unresolved
dispute"and payment,if any,shall be as later determined by mutual agreement or a court of law.
Contractor will keep accurate,detailed records of all disputed work,claims and other disputed matters.
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc CD 5
Public Contract Code Sections 20104 et seq.and Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code chapter 3.24
("Claims Against the City")shall govern the procedures of the claim process,and the provisions of Public
Contract Code Sections 20104 et seq.and Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code chapter 3.24 are
incorporated herein.
6.Incorporation by Reference.All of the following documents are attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference:City of Rancho Palos Verdes Instructions for Execution of
Instruments;Insurance Requirements for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Contract;
Payment Bond (Labor and Materials);Performance Bond;Workers'Compensation Certificate of
Insurance;Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement and Waiver of Subrogation and Contribution;
Additional Insured Endorsement (Comprehensive General Liability);Additional Insured Endorsement
(Automobile Liability);and Additional Insured Endorsement (Excess Liability).
7.Audit.The City or its representative shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing
all records and other written materials used by Contractor in preparing its billings to the City as a
condition precedent to any payment to Contractor.Contractor will promptly furnish documents requested
by the City.Additionally,pursuant to Government Code Section 8546.7,Contractor shall be subject to
State Auditor examination and audit at the request of the City or as part of any audit of the City,for a
period of three (3)years after final payment under this Agreement.
8.Antitrust Claims.Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 7103.5,Contractor offers
and agrees to assign to the City all rights,title,and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under
Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.Sec.15)or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2 (commencing
with Section 16700)of Part 2 of Division 7 of the California Business and Professions Code)arising from
purchases of goods,services,or materials pursuant to the Agreement.This assignment shall be made and
become effective at the time the City tenders final payment to Contractor without further
acknowledgment by the parties.
9.Utilities.City assumes the responsibility for the timely removal,relocation,or protection
of existing main or trunkline utility facilities located on the site of the project that is the subject of this
Agreement.City shall compensate Contractor for the costs of locating,repairing damage not due to the
failure of the Contractor to exercise reasonable care,and removing or relocating such utility facilities with
reasonable accuracy,and for equipment on the project necessarily idled during such work.Contractor
shall not be assessed liquidated damages for delay in completion of the project,when such delay was
caused by the failure of the City or the owner of the utility to provide for removal or relocation of such
utility facilities.
10.Location of Existing Elements.Pursuant to Government Code Sections 4216 to 4216.9,
the methods used and costs involved to locate existing elements,points of connection and all construction
methods are Contractor's sole responsibility.Accuracy of information furnished,as to existing
conditions,is not guaranteed by City.Contractor,at its sole expense,must make all investigations
necessary to determine locations of existing elements,which may include,without limitation,contacting
U.S.A.alert and other private underground locating firm(s),and/or utilizing potholes,specialized locating
equipment and/or hand trenching.
11.Independent Contractor.Contractor 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 Contractor or any of the Contractor's employees,except as herein set forth,and Contractor is free to
dispose of all portions of its time and activities which it is not obligated to devote to the City in such a
manner and to such persons,firms,or corporations at the Contractor wishes except as expressly provided
in this Agreement.Contractor shall have no power to incur any debt,obligation,or liability on behalf of
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc
the City or otherwise act on behalf of the City as an agent.Contractor shall not,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.Contractor agrees to pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Contractor under this
Agreement,and to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all taxes,assessments,penalties,
and interest asserted against the City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this
Agreement.Contractor shall fully comply with the workers'compensation law regarding Contractor and
its employees.Contractor further agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any failure of
Contractor to comply with applicable workers'compensation laws.The City shall have the right to offset
against the amount of any fees due to Contractor under this Agreement any amount due to the City from
Contractor as a result of its failure to promptly pay to the City any reimbursement or indemnification
arising under this Section.
12.Workers'Compensation Insurance.California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700
provide that every contractor will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees.In
accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861,the Contractor hereby certifies as
follows:
"I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every
employer to be insured against liability for workers'compensation or to under take self-
insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code,and I will comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract."
13.Debarred,Suspended or Ineligible Contractors.Contractor shall not be debarred
throughout the duration of this Agreement.Contractor shall not perform work with debarred
subcontractor pursuant to California Labor Code sections 1777.1 or 1777.7.
14.Subcontracting.Contractor shall adhere to all relevant provisions of the Subletting and
Subcontracting Fair Practices Act,California Public Contract Code section 4100 et seq.
15.Conflicts of Interest.Contractor 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 Contractor "financially interested,"as provided in Government
Code Section 1090 and 87100,in any decisions made by City on any matter in connection with which
Contractor has been retained pursuant to this Agreement.
16.Third Party Claims.City shall have full authority to compromise or otherwise settle any
claim relating to the Agreement at any time.City shall timely notification Contractor of the receipt of any
third-party claim,relating to the Agreement.City shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs incurred
in providing this notice.
17.Prevailing Wages.City and Contractor acknowledge that this project is a public work to
which prevailing wages apply.The Agreement to Comply with California Labor Law Requirements is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.Eight hours of labor constitutes a legal day's
work.
18.Applicable Law.Should either party to this Agreement bring legal action against the
other,the validity,interpretation,and performance of this Agreement shall be controlled by and construed
under the laws of the State of California,excluding California's choice of law rules.Venue for any such
action relating to this Agreement shall be in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
19.Attorneys'Fees.If any legal action or other proceeding,including action for declaratory
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc
relief,is brought for the enforcement of this Agreement or because of an alleged dispute,breach,default
or misrepresentation in connection with this Agreement,the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover
reasonable attorneys'fees,experts'fees,and other costs,in addition to any other relief to which the party
may be entitled.
20.Titles.The titles used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall in no way
define,limit or describe the scope or intent of this Agreement or any part of it.
21.Entire Agreement.This Agreement,including any other documents incorporated herein
by specific reference,represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Contractor and
supersedes all prior negotiations,representations or agreements,either written or oral.This Agreement
may be modified or amended,or provisions or breach may be waived,only by subsequent written
agreement signed by both parties.
22.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.
23.Non-waiver of Terms,Rights and Remedies.Waiver by either party of anyone or more
of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any other condition of
performance under this Agreement.In no event shall the making by the City of any payment to
Consultant constitute or be construed as a waiver by the City of any breach of covenant,or any default
which may then exist on the part of Consultant,and the making of any such payment by the City shall in
no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to the City with regard to such breach or default.
24.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.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed the within Agreement the day and
year first above written.
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
By:_
Mayor
ATTEST:
By:_
City Clerk
CONTRACTOR:
By:_
Printed Name:-------------
Date:_
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
INSTRUCTIONS FOR EXECUTION OF INSTRUMENTS
THIS IS INSTRUCTION ONLY -IT IS NOT TO BE SIGNED OR USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER FORMS THAT MUST BE TURNED INTO THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES -IT IS SIMPLY A FORMAT TO USE WHEN FILLING OUT
DOCUMENTS.
1.By an Individual.The individual must sign the instrument,and if he/she is doing business under
a fictitious name,the fictitious name must be set forth.The signature must be acknowledged
before a Notary Public,using the proper form of acknowledgment.
2.By a Partnership.The name of the partnership must be set forth followed by the signatures of
less than all of the partners will be acceptable only if submitted with evidence of authority to act
on behalf of the partnership.The signatures must be acknowledged before a Notary Public,using
the proper form of acknowledgment.
3.By a Corporation.The name of the corporation must be set forth,followed by the signatures of
the President or Vice President and Secretary or Assistant Secretary.The signatures must be
acknowledged before a Notary Public,using in substance the following form of acknowledgment.
4.By a Surety.The name of the surety must be set forth,followed by an authorized signature.The
signatures must be acknowledged before a Notary Public,using the proper form of
acknowledgment.
STATEOF .)
)ss.
COUNTY OF .)
On ,20 __,before me,the undersigned,appeared _
known to me to be the President or Vice President and known to be to be the Secretary or Assistant
Secretary of the corporation that executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that such
corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its City Council.
WITNESS my signature and seal.
Notary Public
(Seal)
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT
The Contractor shall at all time during the term of this Agreement carry,maintain,and keep in full force
and effect,with an insurance company admitted to do business in California and approved by the City (1)
a policy or policies of broad-form comprehensive general liability insurance with minimum limits of
$5,000,000.00 combined single limit coverage against any injury,death,lose,or damage as a result of
wrongful or negligent acts by the Contractor,its officers,employees,agents,and independent contractors
in performance of services under this Agreement;(2)property damage insurance with a minimum limit of
$1,000,000.00;(3)automotive liability insurance with a minimum combined single limits coverage of
$5,000,000.00;and (4)workers'compensation insurance with a minimum limit of $1,000,000.00 or the
amount required by law,whichever is greater.The City,its officers,employees,attorneys,and volunteers
shall be named as additional insured on the policy(ies)as to comprehensive general liability,property
damage,and workers'compensation coverages.
1.Acceptable insurance coverage shall be placed with carriers admitted to write insurance
in California,or carriers with a rating of,or equivalent to,A:VII by A.M.Best &
Company.Any deviation from this rule shall require specific approval,in writing,from
the City.
2.All insurance policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be non-renewed,
canceled,reduced,or otherwise modified (except through addition of additional insured
to the policy)by the insurance carrier without the insurance carrier giving the City thirty
(30)days prior written notice thereof.The Contractor agrees that it will not cancel,
reduce or otherwise modify said insurance coverage.
3.The Contractor agrees that if it does not keep the aforesaid insurance in full force and
effect,and such insurance is available at a reasonable cost,the City may take out the
necessary insurance and pay the premium thereon,and the repayment thereof shall be
deemed an obligation of the Contractor and the cost of such insurance may be deducted,
at the option of the City,from payments due the Contractor.
4.The Contractor shall submit to the City (1)insurance certificates indicating compliance
with the minimum workers'compensation insurance requirements above,and (2)
insurance policy endorsements above,not less than one (1)day prior to beginning of
performance under this Agreement.Endorsements must be executed on the City's
appropriate standard forms entitled "Additional Insured Endorsement,"copies of which
are attached hereto.
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc
Bond No._
PAYMENT BOND
(LABOR AND MATERIALS)
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that:
WHEREAS the _
("Public Agency"),has awarded to _
(Name and address ofContractor)
("Principal"), a contract (the "Contract")for the work described as follows:RESIDENTIAL
STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Fiscal Year 2009-2010 AREA 4 AND AREA 8
WHEREAS,Principal is required under the terms of the Contract and the California Civil Code to secure
the payment of claims of laborers,mechanics,materialmen,and other persons as provided by law.
NOW,THEREFORE,we,the undersigned Principal,and _
(Name and address ofSurety)
("Surety")a duly admitted surety insurer under the laws of the State of California,as Surety,are
held and firmly bound unto the Public Agency in the penal sum of _
Dollars ($),this amount being not less than one hundred
percent (100%)of the total contract price,in lawful money of the United States of America,for the
payment of which sum well and truly to be made,we bind ourselves,our heirs,executors,administrators,
successors,and assigns,jointly and severally,firmly by these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT,if the hereby bounded Principal,his,her
or its heirs,executors,administrators,successors or assigns,or subcontractors shall fail to pay any of the
persons named in Section 3181 of the California Civil Code,or any amounts due under the
Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed under the Contract,or for any
amounts required to be deducted,withheld,and paid over to the Employment Development Department
from the wages of employees of the Principal and subcontractors pursuant to Section 13020 of the
Unemployment Insurance Code,with respect to work or labor performed under the Contract,the Surety
will pay for the same in an amount not exceeding the penal sum specified in this bond;otherwise,this
obligation shall become null and void.
This bond shall inure to the benefit of any of the persons named in Section 3181 of the California Civil
Code so as to give a right of action to such persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon the bond.In
case suit is brought upon this bond,Surety further agrees to pay all court costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees in an amount fixed by the court.
Further,the Surety,for value received,hereby stipulates and agrees that no change,extension of time,
alteration,addition or modification to the terms of the Contract,or of the work to be performed
thereunder,or the specifications for the same,shall in any way affect its obligations under this bond,and
it does hereby waive notice of any such change,extension of time,alteration,addition,or modification to
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc
the terms of the Contract or to the work or to the specifications thereunder.Surety hereby waives the
provisions of California Civil Code'2845 and 2849.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,two (2)identical counterparts of this instrument,each of which shall for all
purposes be deemed an original hereof,have been duly executed by Principal and Surety,on the date set
forth below,the name of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its
undersigned representative(s)pursuant to authority of its governing body.
Dated:_
"Principal"
By:_
Its
By:_
Its
(Seal)
APPROVED AS TO SURETY AND
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
By:_
Insurance Administrator
"Surety"
By:_
Its
By:_
Its
(Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RICHARDS,WATSON &GERSHON
A Professional Corporation
By:_
Public Agency Attorney
Note:This bond must be executed in duplicate and dated,all signatures must be notarized,and evidence of the authority of any
person signing as attorney-in-fact must be attached.
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc CD
Bond No.----
PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that:
WHEREAS the _
("Public Agency"),has awarded to _
(Name and address ofContractor)
("Principal"),a contract (the "Contract")for the work described as follows:RESIDENTIAL
STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 AREA 4 AND AREA
8
WHEREAS,Principal is required under the terms of the Contract to furnish a bond for the faithful
performance of the Contract.
NOW,THEREFORE,we,the undersigned Principal,and _
(Name and address ofSurety)
("Surety")a duly admitted surety insurer under the laws of the State of Califomi a,as Surety,are
held and firmly bound unto the Public Agency in the penal sum of _
Dollars ($),this amount being not less than the
total contract price,in lawful money of the United States of America,for the payment of which sum
well and truly to be made,we bind ourselves,our heirs,executors,administrators,successors,and
assigns,jointly and severally,firmly by these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT,if the hereby bounded Principal,his,her
or its heirs,executors,administrators,successors or assigns,shall in all things stand to and abide by,and
well and truly keep and perform all the undertakings,terms,covenants,conditions and agreements in the
Contract and any alteration thereof made as therein provided,on the Principal's part to be kept and
performed,all within the time and in the manner therein specified,and in all respects according to their
true intent and meaning,and shall indemnify and hold harmless the Public Agency,its officers,agents,
and others as therein provided,then this obligation shall become null and void;otherwise,it shall be and
remain in full force and effect.
In case suit is brought upon this bond,Surety further agrees to pay all court costs and reasonable
attorneys'fees in an amount fixed by the court.
FURTHER,the Surety,for value received,hereby stipulates and agrees that no change,extension of time,
alteration,addition or modification to the terms of the Contract,or of the work to be performed
thereunder,or the specifications for the same,shall in any way affect its obligations under this bond,and
it does hereby waive notice of any such change,extension of time,alteration,addition,or modification to
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc
the terms of the Contract or to the work or to the specifications thereunder.Surety hereby waives the
provisions of California Civil Code I 2845 and 2849.The City is the principal beneficiary of this bond
and has all rights of a party hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,two (2)identical counterparts of this instrument,each of which shall for all
purposes be deemed an original hereof,have been duly executed by Principal and Surety,on the date set
forth below,the name of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its
undersigned representative(s)pursuant to authority of its governing body.
Dated:
"Principal"
By:_
Its
By:_
Its
(Seal)
APPROVED AS TO SURETY AND
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
By:_
Insurance Administrator
"Surety"
By:_
Its
By:_
Its
(Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RICHARDS,WATSON &GERSHON
A Professional Corporation
By:_
Public Agency Attorney
Note:This bond must be executed in duplicate and dated,all signatures must be notarized.and evidence of the authority of any
person signing as attorney-in-fact must be attached
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc
WORKERS'COMPENSATION
CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE
WHEREAS,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has required certain insurance to be provided by:
NOW THEREFORE,the undersigned insurance company does hereby certify that it has issued the policy
or policies described below to the following named insureds and that the same are in force at this time:
1.This certificate is issued to:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275
2.The insureds under such policy or policies are:
3.Workers'Compensation Policy or Policies in a form approved by the Insurance Commissioner of
California covering all operations of the named insureds as follows:
Policy Number Effective Date Expiration Date
4.Said policy or policies shall not be canceled,nor shall there be any reduction in coverage or limits
of liability,unless and until thirty days'written notice thereof has been served upon the City Clerk
of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
By:_
Its Authorized Representative
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc
AGREEMENT TO COMPLY WITH
CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW REQUIREMENTS
[Labor Code 1720,1773.8,1775, 1776,1777.5,1813, 1860,1861,3700]
The undersigned Contractor certifies that it is aware of and hereby agrees to fully comply with the
following provisions of California law:
1.Contractor acknowledges that this contract is subj ect to the provisions of Division 2,Part 7,Chapter
1 (commencing with Section 1720)of the California Labor Code relating to public works and the
awarding public agency ("Agency")and agrees to be bound by all the provisions thereof as though
set forth in full herein.
2.Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1773.8 which
requires the payment of travel and subsistence payments to each worker needed to execute the work
to the extent required by law.
3.Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of California Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775
concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay
prevailing wages.The Contractor shall,as a penalty to the Agency,forfeit not more than fifty dollars
($50)for each calendar day,or portion thereof,for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as
determined by the Director of Industrial Relations for the work or craft in which the worker is
employed for any public work done under the contract by Contractor or by any subcontractor.
4.Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1776 which
require Contractor and each subcontractor to (1)keep accurate payroll records,(2)certifY and make
such payroll records available for inspection as provided by Section 1776,and (3)inform the Agency
of the location of the records.The Contractor is responsible for compliance with Section 1776 by
itself and all of its subcontractors.
5.Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1777.5 concerning
the employment of apprentices on public works projects,and further agrees that Contractor is
responsible for compliance with Section 1777.5 by itself and all of its subcontractors.
6.Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1813 concerning
penalties for workers who work excess hours.The Contractor shall,as a penalty to the Agency,
forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25)for each worker employed in the execution of the contract by the
Contractor or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or
permitted to work more than 8 hours in anyone calendar day and 40 hours in anyone calendar week
in violation of the provisions of Division 2,Part 7,Chapter 1,Article 3 of the California Labor Code.
7.California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every contractor will be required to
secure the payment of compensation to its employees.In accordance with the provisions of
California Labor Code Section 1861,Contractor hereby certifies as follows:
"I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require
every employer to be insured against liability for workers'compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code,and I
will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the
work of this contract."
Date _Signature _
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc
INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
AND WAIVER OF SUBROGATION AND CONTRIBUTION
Contract/Agreement/License/Permit No.or description:_
Indemnitor(s)(list all names):
To the fullest extent permitted by law,Indemnitor hereby agrees,at its sole cost and expense,to
defend,protect,indemnify,and hold harmless the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and its elected
officials,officers,attorneys,agents,employees, volunteers,successors,and assigns (collectively
"Indemnitees")from and against any and all damages,costs,expenses,liabilities,claims,demands,
causes of action,proceedings,expenses,judgments,penalties,liens,and losses of any nature whatsoever,
including fees of accountants,attorneys,or other professionals and all costs associated therewith
(collectively "Liabilities"),arising or claimed to arise,directly or indirectly,out of,in connection with,
resulting from,or related to any act,failure to act,error,or omission of Indemnitor or any of its officers,
agents,servants,employees,subcontractors,materialmen,suppliers or their officers,agents,servants or
employees,arising or claimed to arise,directly or indirectly,out of,in connection with,resulting from,or
related to the above-referenced contract,agreement,license,or permit (the "Agreement")or the
performance or failure to perform any term,provision,covenant,or condition of the Agreement,including
this indemnity provision.This indemnity provision is effective regardless of any prior,concurrent,or
subsequent active or passive negligence by Indemnitees and shall operate to fully indemnify Indemnitees
against any such negligence.This indemnity provision shall survive the termination of the Agreement
and is in addition to any other rights or remedies which Indemnitees may have under the law.Payment is
not required as a condition precedent to an Indemnitee's right to recover under this indemnity provision,
and an entry of judgment against an Indemnitee shall be conclusive in favor of the Indemnitee's right to
recover under this indemnity provision.Indemnitor shall pay Indemnitees for any attorney's fees and
costs incurred in enforcing this indemnification provision.Notwithstanding the foregoing,nothing in this
instrument shall be construed to encompass (a)Indemnitees'sole negligence or willful misconduct to the
limited extent that the underlying Agreement is subject to Civil Code 2782(a)or (b)the contracting public
agency's active negligence to the limited extent that the underlying Agreement is subject to Civil Code
2782(b).This indemnity is effective without reference to the existence or applicability of any insurance
coverages which may have been required under the Agreement or any additional insured endorsements
which may extend to Indemnitees.
Indemnitor,on behalf of itself and all parties claiming under or through it,hereby waives all rights of
subrogation and contribution against the Indemnitees,while acting within the scope of their duties,from
all claims,losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to activities or operations performed by or on
behalf of the Indemnitor regardless of any prior,concurrent,or subsequent active or passive negligence
by the Indemnitees.
In the event there is more than one person or entity named in the Agreement as an Indemnitor,then all
obligations,liabilities,covenants and conditions under this instrument shall be joint and several.
"Indemnitor"
Name,_
By:_
Its
Name _
By:_
Its
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc
ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY
Name and address ofnamed insured (''Named Insured'):
Name and address ofInsurance Company ("Company'):
General description ofagreement(s),permit(s),license(s),and/or activity(ies)insured:
Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy to which this endorsement is attached
(the "Policy")or in any endorsement now or hereafter attached thereto,it is agreed as follows:
1.The _
("Public Agency"),its elected officials,officers,attorneys,agents,employees,and volunteers are
additional insureds (the above named additional insureds are hereafter referred to as the "Additional
Insureds")under the Policy in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to
operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured.The Additional Insureds have no liability for
the payment of any premiums or assessments under the Policy.
2.The insurance coverages afforded the Additional Insureds under the Policy shall be
primary insurance,and no other insurance maintained by the Additional Insureds shall be called upon to
contribute with the insurance coverages provided by the Policy.
3.Each insurance coverage under the Policy shall apply separately to each Additional
Insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the limits of the Company's
liability.
4.Nothing in this contract of insurance shall be construed to preclude coverage of a claim
by one insured under the policy against another insured under the policy.All such claims shall be
covered as third-party claims,i.e.,in the same manner as if separate policies had been issued to each
insured.Nothing contained in this provision shall operate to increase or replicate the Company's limits of
liability as provided under the policy.
5.The insurance afforded by the Policy for contractual liability insurance (subject to the
terms,conditions and exclusions applicable to such insurance)includes liability assumed by the Named
Insured under the indemnification and/or hold harmless provision(s)contained in or executed in
conjunction with the written agreement(s)or permit(s)designated above,between the Named Insured and
the Additional Insureds.
6.The policy to which this endorsement is attached shall not be subject to cancellation,
change in coverage,reduction of limits (except as the result of the payment of claims),or non-renewal
except after written notice to Public Agency,by certified mail,return receipt requested,not less than
thirty (30)days prior to the effective date thereof.In the event of Company's failure to comply with this
notice provision,the policy as initially drafted will continue in full force and effect until compliance with
this notice requirement.
7.Company hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Additional
Insureds,while acting within the scope of their duties,from all claims,losses and liabilities arising out of
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc
or incident to the perils insured against in relation to those activities described generally above with
regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured regardless of any prior,concurrent,
or subsequent active or passive negligence by the Additional Insureds.
8.It is hereby agreed that the laws of the State of California shall apply to and govern the
validity,construction,interpretation,and enforcement of this contract of insurance.
9.This endorsement and all notices given hereunder shall be sent to Public Agency at:
10.Except as stated above and not in conflict with this endorsement,nothing contained
herein shall be held to waive,alter or extend any of the limits,agreements,or exclusions of the policy to
which this endorsement is attached.
TYPE OF COVERAGES TO WHICH
THIS ENDORSEMENT ATTACHES
POLICY PERIOD
FROM/TO
LIMITS OF
LIABILITY
11.Scheduled items or locations are to be identified on an attached sheet.The following
inclusions relate to the above coverages.Includes:
°Contractual Liability
°OwnerslLandlords/Tenants
°Manufacturers/Contractors
°Products/Completed Operations
°Broad Form Property Damage
°Extended Bodily Injury
°Broad Form Comprehensive
General Liability Endorsement
°Explosion Hazard
°Collapse Hazard
°Underground Property Damage
°Pollution Liability
°Liquor Liability
0 _
0 _
0 _
12.A °deductible or °self-insured retention (check one)of $._
applies to all coverage(s)except:__~-----:--:----------------------
(ifnone,so state).The deductible is applicable °per claim or °per occurrence (check one).
13.This is an °occurrence or °claims made policy (check one).
14.This endorsement is effective on at 12:01 a.m.and forms a part
of Policy Number _
I,(print name),hereby
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California,that I have the authority to bind
the Company to this endorsement and that by my execution hereof,I do so bind the Company.
Executed ,20__
Telephone No.:(..)_
Signature of Authorized Representative
(Original signature only;no facsimile signature
or initialed signature accepted)
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc
ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
Name and address ofnamed insured ("Named Insured'):_
Name and address ofInsurance Company ("Company'):_
General description ofagreement(s),permit(s),licensers),and/or activity(ies)insured:
Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy to which this endorsement is attached
(the "Policy")or in any endorsement now or hereafter attached thereto,it is agreed as follows:
1.The _
("Public Agency"),its elected officials,officers,attorneys,agents,employees,and volunteers are
additional insureds (the above named additional insureds are hereafter referred to as the "Additional
Insureds")under the Policy in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to
operations performed by or on behalf ofthe Named Insured.The Additional Insureds have no liability for
the payment of any premiums or assessments under the Policy.
2.The insurance coverages afforded the Additional Insureds under the Policy shall be
primary insurance,and no other insurance maintained by the Additional Insureds shall be called upon to
contribute with the insurance coverages provided by the Policy.
3.Each insurance coverage under the Policy shall apply separately to each Additional
Insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the limits of the Company's
liability.
4.Nothing in this contract of insurance shall be construed to preclude coverage of a claim
by one insured under the policy against another insured under the policy.All such claims shall be
covered as third-party claims,i.e.,in the same manner as if separate policies had been issued to each
insured.Nothing contained in this provision shall operate to increase or replicate the Company's limits of
liability as provided under the policy.
5.The insurance afforded by the Policy for contractual liability insurance (subject to the
terms,conditions and exclusions applicable to such insurance)includes liability assumed by the Named
Insured under the indemnification and/or hold harmless provision(s)contained or executed in conjunction
with the written agreement(s)or permit(s)designated above,between the Named Insured and the
Additional Insureds.
6.The policy to which this endorsement is attached shall not be subject to cancellation,
change in coverage,reduction of limits (except as the result of the payment of claims),or non-renewal
except after written notice to Public Agency,by certified mail,return receipt requested,not less than
thirty (30)days prior to the effective date thereto.In the event of Company's failure to comply with this
notice provision,the policy as initially drafted will continue in full force and effect until compliance with
this notice requirement.
7.Company hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Additional
Insureds,while acting within the scope of their duties,from all claims,losses and liabilities arising out of
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc
or incident to the perils insured against in relation to those activities described generally above with
regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured regardless of any prior,concurrent,
or subsequent active or passive negligence by the Additional Insureds.
8.It is hereby agreed that the laws of the State of California shall apply to and govern the
validity,construction,interpretation,and enforcement of this contract of insurance.
9.This endorsement and all notices given hereunder shall be sent to Public Agency at:
City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275
10.Except as stated above and not in conflict with this endorsement,nothing contained
herein shall be held to waive,alter or extend any of the limits,agreements,or exclusions of the policy to
which this endorsement is attached.
TYPE OF COVERAGES TO WHICH
THIS ENDORSEMENT ATTACHES
POLICY PERIOD
FROM/TO
LIMITS OF
LIABILITY
11.Scheduled items or locations are to be identified on an attached sheet.The following
inclusions relate to the above coverages.Includes:
\Any Automobiles
\All Owned Automobiles
\Non-owned Automobiles
\Hired Automobiles
\Scheduled Automobiles
\Garage Coverage
\Truckers Coverage
\Motor Carrier Act
\Bus Regulatory Reform Act
\Public Livery Coverage
\
\
12.A 0 deductible or 0 self-insured retention (check one)of $_
applies to all coverage(s)except:(if none,so state).The deductible is applicable
G per claim or G per occurrence (check one).
13.This is an 0 occurrence or 0 claims made policy (check one).
14.
Number
This endorsement is effective on at 12:01 a.m.and forms a part of Policy
I,(print name),hereby
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California,that I have the authority to bind
the Company to this endorsement and that by my execution hereof,I do so bind the Company.
Executed ,20__
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc ®
Telephone No.:( )_
Signature of Authorized Representative
(Original signature only;no facsimile signature
or initialed signature accepted)
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc
ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT
EXCESS LIABILITY
Name and address ofnamed insured ("Named Insured'):
Name and address ofInsurance Company ("Company'):
General description ofagreement(s),permit(s),licensers),and/or activity(ies)insured:
Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy to which this endorsement is attached
(the "Policy")or in any endorsement now or hereafter attached thereto,it is agreed as follows:
1.The __,--__,.,.,.......,----.,--_--::-:::-----,-.,-----_
("Public Agency"),its elected officials,officers,attorneys,agents,employees,and volunteers are
additional insureds (the above named additional insureds are hereafter referred to as the "Additional
Insureds")under the Policy in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to
operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured.The Additional Insureds have no liability for
the payment of any premiums or assessments under the Policy.
2.The insurance coverages afforded the Additional Insureds under the Policy shall be
primary insurance,and no other insurance maintained by the Additional Insureds shall be called upon to
contribute with the insurance coverages provided by the Policy.
3.Each insurance coverage under the Policy shall apply separately to each Additional
Insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought,except with respect to the limits of the Company's
liability.
4.Nothing in this contract of insurance shall be construed to preclude coverage of a claim
by one insured under the policy against another insured under the policy.All such claims shall be
covered as third-party claims,i.e.,in the same manner as if separate policies had been issued to each
insured.Nothing contained in this provision shall operate to increase or replicate the Company's limits of
liability as provided under the policy.
5.The insurance afforded by the Policy for contractual liability insurance (subject to the
terms,conditions and exclusions applicable to such insurance)includes liability assumed by the Named
Insured under the indemnification and/or hold harmless provision(s)contained in or executed in
conjunction with the written agreement(s)or permit(s)designated above,between the Named Insured and
the Additional Insureds.
6.The policy to which this endorsement is attached shall not be subject to cancellation,
change in coverage,reduction of limits (except as the result of the payment of claims),or non-renewal
except after written notice to Public Agency,by certified mail,return receipt requested,not less than
thirty (30)days prior to the effective date thereto.In the event of Company's failure to comply with this
notice provision,the policy as initially drafted will continue in full force and effect until compliance with
this notice requirement.
7.Company hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Additional
Insureds,while acting within the scope of their duties,from all claims,losses and liabilities arising out of
or incident to the perils insured against in relation to those activities described generally above with
regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured regardless of any prior,concurrent,
or subsequent active or passive negligence by the Additional Insureds.
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc
8.It is hereby agreed that the laws of the State of California shall apply to and govern the
validity,construction,interpretation,and enforcement of this contract of insurance.
9.This endorsement and all notices given hereunder shall be sent to Public Agency at:
City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275
10.Except as stated above and not in conflict with this endorsement,nothing contained
herein shall be held to waive,alter or extend any of the limits,agreements,or exclusions of the policy to
which this endorsement is attached.
TYPE OF COVERAGES TO WHICH
THIS ENDORSEMENT ATTACHES
POLICY PERIOD
FROM/TO
LIMITS OF
LIABILITY
o Following Form
o Umbrella Liability
0 _
11.Applicable underlying coverages:
INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO.AMOUNT
12.The following inclusions,exclusions,extensions or specific provisions relate to the above
coverages:
13.A 0 deductible or 0 self-insured retention (check one)of $__applies to all
coverage(s)except:_
(ifnone,so state).The deductible is applicable 0 per claim or 0 per occurrence (check one).
14.This is an 0 occurrence or 0 claims made policy (check one).
15.This endorsement is effective on at 12:01 a.m.and forms a part of Policy
Number _
I,(print name),hereby
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California,that I have the authority to bind
the Company to this endorsement and that by my execution hereof,I do so bind the Company.
Executed ,20 __
Telephone No.:(.)__
R6876-0001 \1324913vl.doc
Signature of Authorized Representative
(Original signature only;no facsimile signature
or initialed signature accepted)
Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District,
A State of California Geohazards District
To:Kit Fox,Assoc.Planner,City of Rancho Palos Verdes
From:Robert Douglas,Chairman,Board of Directors,Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement
District (ACLAD)
Date:Jan.28,2011
Comments on:Initial Study,Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance
Revisions,Dec.2010
Project Scope
Zone 2,the proposed area for the EIR,is bounded to the north and west by
mostly open space,to the south by the active Abalone Cove landslide (ACl)and to the
east by the active Portuguese Bend landslide (PBl).Each of these areas has a direct
influence on Zone 2 and,at the minimum the scope of the EIR should be expanded to
include contiguous portions of each area.For example,the hillside areas to the north
have moderate to steep slopes which drain storm water into Zone 2 and no analysis of
the storm drain capacity within zone 2 would be complete without a hydrologic study of
these upslope hillsides.In turn,storm waters generated to the north and within Zone 2
flow directly into the ACl and affect its stability.The scope of the proposed EIR is too
limited.
Geology and Soils
The Initial Study (IS)concludes that there would be a less than significant impact
from seismic-related ground failure.The comments (a(iii))focus on liquefaction and
rightly conclude that this is not a major issue in the area.However,of major concern is
slope failure (slumps,landslides)generated by ground acceleration during an
earthquake (a(iv)).The entire area to the north of Zone 2 is an ancient landslide
complex,composed on numerous landslide masses of varying size,the stability of which
is essentially unknown.Except for the fact that these landslides have not moved in
historical time,there is no information available which would indicate how these
ancient landslide masses would respond to ground shaking.This is a major concern and
appropriate and experienced experts in the effects of seismically induced slope failure
must be contracted for this portion of the EIR.
The IS concludes that because the soils on the 64 developed lots have previously
been disturbed and compacted,the potential for expansive soils is low in these areas.
Observations in the developed part of zone 2 suggest that the soils remain expansive
and are the source of continued damage in the older houses.As concluded in d,the
impact of expansive soils is a major problem and needs to be investigated both within
Zone 2 and the adjacent area to better understand how to deal with this problem.
l \
Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District,
A State of California Geohazards District
Hydrology and Water Quality
The single biggest problem generated by the addition of new homes in Zone 2
will be the rainwater runoff generated by increased hardscape.This creates two related
issues of major importance:adequacy of the storm drain system and the addition of
water to the subsurface.
The existing roads are the stotm drain system although they were not designed
for this task.Over the years,the addition of road-side berms,culverts and drains have
made the current system "adequate"under normal rainfall conditions.During greater
than 1 inch/hour rainfall the streets tend to flood.During the 1990s a study of storm
runoff in the community using hydrological calculations made by the LA County Flood
Control cited changes and improvements that should made to the system to
accommodate 50 year and 100 year storm events.Few of these recommendations were
implemented.To understand the existing system and its capacity to accommodate the
addition of new homes,several steps should be taken,including:
a.An analysis of the existing storm drain system to determine its current
capacity under different rainfall conditions.Currently we only have "qualitative"
information based on observation during rain storms.
b.A hydrological analysis of the runoff generated by normal as well as extreme
rainfall conditions originating from the hillside slopes to the north and west of Zone 2.
This should include the developed area within the upper reaches of the Altamira Canyon
drainage basin.It is important to identify the volume at each location where this runoff
enters the road-storm drain system.This analysis also needs to identify where the
runoff enters the Altamira Canyon drainage system and the amounts at each location.
This is important both for the road-storm drain system as well for ACLAD's efforts in
recovering groundwater.
c.A proposal of how the storm runoff can be modified in the case that the
potential 47 new homes will produce more runoff than the road-drain system can
accommodate,even with improvements.
The storm water discharge in Altamira Canyon is the major source of recharge to
the groundwater system in the area.Measurements made by Hill and Douglas during
major storms in 1998 indicate that less than 20%of the storm discharge in the canyon at
upper Narcissa Drive actually reached the ocean,the rest infiltrated into the canyon
bottom,mostly through major fractures associated with landslides that cross the
canyon.As new houses are added,the additional hardscape will shorten the timing and
increase the volume of runoff water entering Altamira Canyon.As groundwater build-
up is a key variable in the geological stability of the area,especially in the active ACL,it is
important that as much of the additional storm runoff as possible be directed to enter
the canyon low in its course.
Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District,
A State of California Geohazards District
Cinnamon Lane,between lower and upper Narcissa Drive is approximately the
drainage divide in Zone 2 and water which collects west of Cinnamon flows south and
enters Altamira Canyon near the end of Figtree Road,in the lower part of the canyon.
This is desirable as this route enters the canyon closer to its terminus and bypasses
several major fractures.However,storm water which collects to the east of Cinnamon
flows south and east and enters the canyon at several locations,all above the fracture
zones that cross the canyon.Any investigation ofthe storm water drainage in zone 2
and adjacent areas needs to pay special attention to this problem.Ultimately,any
suggested design changes to the road-storm drain system must minimize this problem.
It is much simpler and cheaper to prevent storm water from entering the ground water
than it is to pump it out of the ground.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the IS and ACLAD stands ready to provide
any assistance or information that may help in the preparation of the EIR.
Robert Douglas
Chairman,Board of Directors,ACLAD
To:Kit Fox,Associate Planner for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
From:Jim Knight
Dated Jan.29,2010
Comments on Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions Initial Study dated Dec.2010
GENERAL COMMENTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project description of this Initial Study (IS)is an approximately 112 acre "'Zone 2 Landslide
Moratorium Ordinance"area consisting of 111 individual lots.The EIR must explain how 16 of those 111 lots
within this project description (labeled "Monks plaintiffs"in figure 2)already have a certified MND,have been
issued Planning entitlements to construct structures and hardscape and how they will subject to any mitigations
that may be set forth in this EIR.The EIR must explain how these 16 lots are to be included in this EIR without
creating a segmentation of this project and explain how this project requires an EIR and why an EIR was not
required of the 16 "Monks plaintiffs"lots under the same CEQA guidelines.
This IS has taken the assumption that there will be no subdivision of these 111 lots.(page 9)A project
description must include all relevant aspects of a project,including reasonably foreseeable future activities that
are part of the project.The EIR must analyze the impacts of the potential subdivision of some of the 111 lots of
the project description thereby potentially increasing the scope and resulting impacts of this project.
OTHER AGENCY APPROVAL
The EIR must explain why this project does not require consultation and/or approval of the RPV
Redevelopment Agency,Improvement Authority or the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District (ACLAD).
SCOPE OF PROJECT
The EIR must include a description of the environment in the vicinity of the project,as it exists before
the commencement of the project,both from a local and regional perspective.The project is within and
contiguous to interrelated landslide areas of which have very complex dynamics influencing each other both
geologically and hydrological.The EIR must include an analysis of these regional dynamics and address the
impacts of the project with respect to areas outside of the project description and must address regional land
stability.
The "Zone 2"project area is contiguous with an area designated by the city as "Zone 5".Zone 5 is
approximately the boundary of the Abalone Cove Landslide area that became active in the late 1970s and into
the early 1980s.This landslide damaged many homes in that time period and caused lending and insurance
companies to seize services to these residents.Concern of future movement forced water,gas and sewer to be
placed above ground in Zone 5.
The contribution of additional storm water runoff into the landslide prone Zone 5 area as a result of this
project poses a potentially significant impact directly to Zone 5 and indirectly to Zone 2.(Any loss of stability
in Zone 5 will migrate into the contiguous Zone 2 area).The Abalone Cove storm drain system concentrates the
runoff from both Zone 2 and Zone 5 into Altamira Canyon.The City's has administrative records from several
decades that have documented Altamira Canyon's deficiency in handling storm water runoff and the potential
of land instability from the infusion of water into the canyon floor.Also in that documentation was a plan for
the City to fix this inadequacy.That Plan was never implemented.
1~3 II
Aside from the decades of documentation,more recently there is video documentation available for
consultant review showing flooding problems and loss of property in lower Altamira Cyn.caused by storm
water runoff.
The Abalone Cove Landslide District (ACLAD)has been monitoring dewatering well production for
years.Their records are also available for consultant review.The most recent records of water well (WW)18
located within the city owned area near the toe ofthe Abalone Cove Landslide seaward ofPV Dr.South)
showed a tremendous increase of well production after the December 2010 rains.It went from 4.91 Kgals/day at
the beginning of Dec.2010 to an unprecedented 29.82 Kgals/day by Jan.13,2011.Normally,with most other
wells within ACLAD,response to rain events occurs with approximately a 6 month delay.These well
production numbers for WW18 seem to indicate that water is infusing directly into lower aquifers through
fissures in this lower canyon area seaward ofPV Dr.South.This phenomenon can lead to land instability in
Zone 5 which can migrate into Zone 2.
Storm water in Altamira canyon can also create severe beach side erosion causing the shoreline to
retreat.This loss of revetment compromises land stability as well.
As a part of the CEQA review of the Marymount Project,it was concluded that the project could not
contribute any more storm water flow rate to a deficient storm drain system offsite than before the
implementation of the project.The scope of this project must include the same analysis for these areas of
outside the boundary of the project area and address what mitigation(s)would appropriately reduce this impact
to less than significant.
COMMENTS BY SECTION
IV BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The IS has not discussed the impact of an increase of fuel modification setbacks created by the addition
of habitable structures on the lots which would mandate additional vegetation clearance,especially in the
northernmost sections of the project which interface with the NCCP preserve.As such,this could impact
biological resources under an NCCP Plan.
VI.GEOLOGY and SOILS
By the IS not including Zone 5 into the scope of this EIR,it has missed the fact that the Dept.of
Conservation Seismic Hazard Zone Map shows an area seaward ofPV Drive South within Zone 5 (and the
Abalone Cove Landslide)which has historic occurrence of liquefaction with local geological,geotechnical and
groundwater conditions that indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigations
would be required.Additional storm water runoff from this project could impact this area and,as mentioned
above,there is a geologically and hydrological contiguous interrelationship between what the city calls Zone 2
and Zone 5.
VIII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The IS fails to address the impacts of storm water runoff to the sensitive intertidal zone of the State
Abalone Cove Ecological Reserve.
IX.HYDROLOGY and WATER QUALITY
The IS must address the impacts of storm water runoff from this project to the entire storm water
drainage system including areas outside of Zone 2 as discussed above in SCOPE OF PROJECT.The IS fails to
address the impacts of storm water runoff to the sensitive intertidal zone of the State Abalone Cove Ecological
Reserve.
X LAND USE/PLANNING
The IS does not include the General Plan's list of Geologic Safety Policies.This project is also subject
to Public Resources Code Sec.2699 which directs cities to "take into account the information provided in
available seismic hazard maps when it adopts or revises the safety element of any land-use planning or
permitting ordinances."Zone 2 is subject to the Geologic Hazards Mapping Act.Both Zone 2 and Zone 5 are
identified on these Geologic Hazard Maps.The Dept of Conservation,Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 117 sets forth guidelines under that Act for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards within
mapped areas such as this project.
The scope of this project should include the land use policies as set forth in the General Plan,State
Ecological Reserve and Geologic Hazards Mapping Act.
XIV PUBLIC SERVICES
The IS does not address the physical change the project creates that could adversely affect fire protection
access.Currently fire protection services can access the northerly open space directly over an unobstructed
vacant lot from a paved street such as upper Cinnamon Ln.There are numerous lots in the project that back up
to natural open space and there needs to be adequate fire protection access between any new homes to the open
space in back in order to provide the same level of fire protection to the entire community.
The IS only addresses the number and location of Fire Stations and not whether or not the hydrant
service to the project area is adequate.It is my understanding that the Fire Dept.has stated hydrant service is
inadequate for this project.
XVI TRANSPORTATION
There are only two emergency access roads for the entire Portuguese Bend community to exit onto
P.V.Dr.South.We are surrounded by a large open space which has had fires recently.Persons,as well as a
large equestrian community,need these roads for emergency access.Existing roads within the Portuguese Bend
community are very old,not compacted well and could be significantly deteriorated by heavy construction
equipment,especially accumulatively for the entire project.Additionally,there are some very dangerous curves
in which it has already been shown to be a safety issue with large trucks.
The IS must analyze the potential significant impacts to the roads servicing the project.
XVII UTILITES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
Some lots within the project do not have direct access to the existing utility service distribution system.
For instance,homes on upper Cinnamon Ln.currently access the water distribution system from Narcissa Dr.
via easements over other properties.The IS must discuss how utilities will be accessed to the project,what
easements would be required if any and what will utility services have to provide in terms of additional main
supply lines to some of the lots in this project.Without this disclosure,it is unknown what impact the project
will have on utility/services systems.
The IS states that the Public Works Department has confirmed that there is adequate sewer capacity to
serve the project.Please clarify how the recent failures of the sewer system,without the addition of the project,
were taken into account as a part of this analysis.
The IS must clarify how the goal of preventing adverse impacts to incremental reduction of ground
water does not conflict with ACLADs opposite goal of trying to pump as much water as possible out of the
ground to mitigate landslides.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study and I am in hopes that this EIR will fully and
adequately address all issues related to the project.
Jim Knight
Teri Takaoka
From:Kit Fox [kitf@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,February 01,2011 9:15 AM
To:'Carla Morreale'
Cc:'Teri Takaoka'
SUbject:FW:Zone 2 EIR Initial Study Comments-addendum
Late Correspondence on Item 11 (Zone 2)
Kit Fox,AICP
Associate Planner
Cit\]o£RanchoPalos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
T:(31O)544~5228
F:(31O)544~5293
E:kit£@rpv.com
From:cassiej@aol.com [mailto:cassiej@ao!.com]
sent:Tuesday,February 01,2011 7:01 AM
To:kitf@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com
Subject:Zone 2 EIR Initial Study Comments-addendum
Mr.Fox,
Sorry for the very late correspondence but it was neglected in my previous comments to mention that the IS states that the
"Private streets within Zone 2 are maintained by the Portuguese Bend Community Association."This is true for the majority of
the streets but not for all of them.Several,maybe 4?,of the vacant parcels in Zone 2 are accessed by a road or roads not
maintained by the PBCA.I honestly don't know who or what entity maintains them but the PBCA does not.
Cassie Jones
2/1/2011 \~
Feb 01 2011 2:44PM Richardson&Harman 6264495572
~·I RiCHARDSON&~,PC
234 E.Colorado Blvd.,Suite 800
Pasadena,California 91101
Telephone:626.449.5577
Facsimile:626.449.5512
Toll Free:877.446.2529
page 1
FACSIMIl.E TRANSMISSION
Da1e:
From:
February 1,2011
Kelly G.Richardson
Original to Folio D!I Yes
CJ No
Number of PagE 3
(Including Fax CcJ r:Jf Sheet)
Subject:Rancho Palos Verdes City Zone 2 Draft Environmental
Impact Report Initial Study
If there are any questions or issues With the fax transmission,please call 6 6.449.5577.
Recipient.Firm/Companv Telephol :t Facsimile
Mr.Kit Fox,Associate Planner
COMMENTS:
Please see attached letter.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission 310-544-228 310-544-5293
This facsimile transmission contains CONFIDENTIAL information from RICHARDSON &HARMAN,PC.This infern
the individual or entity named as the recipient hereof.If you are not the intended recipient,be aware that any dlsclos
the contents of this transmission is prohibited.If yeo have received this transmiS5lon in error,please notify us by
arrange to retrieve this transmission at no cost to you.
ion is inlended solely for use by
".copying,distribution,or use of
sphone immedialely so we may
II
Feb 01 2011 2:44PM Richardson&Harman 6264495572
~I RICHARDSON &lfARMAN,PC
234 E.Colorado Blvd.,Suite 800
Pasadena,California 91101
Telephone:626.449.5577
Facsimile:626.449.5572
Toll Free:877.446.2529
February 1,2011
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S.MAIL,
Mr.Kit Fox,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
page 2
Author E-m II I<richan:lson@rh4law.com
Re:Rancho Palos Verdes City Zone 2 Draft Environmental
Impact Report Initial Study
Dear Mr.Fox:
This office represents the Portuguese Bend Community Association,an Ass
the owners of over 200 improved and unimproved lots In Portuguese Bend.
letter Is to urge the City to expand the scope of the Environmental Impact S
development to proceed on the 16 MMonk Lots-,or the 31 additional lots.Mo
well aware,surrounding property owners have as well made their inte
additional single family detached homes to the land in the adjacent vicinity.
The Association has a number of deep concerns regarding the scope
inquiry.Perhaps the greatest concern is the addressing of water runoff fro
you know,the Portuguese Bend community was constructed without st
extremely minimal ability in the private streets to handle any runoff of
Association streets are all private,through easements granted on private lot
There are no easements provided for drainage devices.Traditionally,th
therefore to be constructed in a way which would handle all surface water w'
adjacent properties.A significant inquiry should be made regarding the im
from these 47 lois which will in the near future be developed,but also i
properties which are also certain to add additional water burden to th
properties.Further,the potential exists not only for overloading the priva
clearly not intended to handle any significant water runoff,but also the Alta
burdened if surface runoff is directed away from the new lots.The con
burdening A1tamira canyon in this fashion are qUite negative,as I susp~ct
Respectfully,the scope of the Environmental Impact StUdy should also more
the probability not only that the 47 subject lots will be developed with sing
also the adjacent uphill properties.These additional properties must be co
the possible eventuality that they will also be built,further burdening Alta
Portuguese Bend private streets.
Pasadena +Costa Mesa +Riverside
'l Or;-3
'ation comprised of
he purpose of this
dy prior to allowing
over,a5 the City is
ion known to add
the environmental
these 47 lots.As
drains and with
rface water.The
or street purposes.
lots were required
out draining it onto
t of water not only
the adjacent uphill
Portuguese Bend
streets which are
ira Canyon will be
uences of further
t would agree.
ealislically address
family homes,but
idered,because of
i Canyon and the
Feb 01 2011 2:44PM Richardson&Harman 6264495572
Mr.Kit Fox,Associate Planner
Re:Rancho Palos Verdes City Zone 2 Draft
Environmental Impact Report Initial Study
February 1,2011
Page 2
page 3
The prospect of proceeding into a future without this major issue being a
client with two alternate nightmare scenarios.The first scenario is erosion,
major soli movement in Altamira Canyon and in many of the improved and
that scenario,the probability of homeowners suing other homeowners for tli
from water flooding is a virtual certainty.This has happened on at least on
Alternatively,is the City's action going to as a practical matter result in an e
a massive stOIlT1 drain system in the Portuguese Bend community?This s
shocking to the homeowners of Portuguese Bend,as the cost of installing a
drain system In the community is so massive (along with the addi
consequences)so as to be unthinkable.
Therefore,the Association urges the City to broaden the scope of the E
Study to address not only the 47 subject lots but the additional adjacent p
and outside Portuguese Bend and that it also include a substantial stud
surface runoff water throughout the entire Portuguese Bend community.
Thank you for your consideration of this request
Very truly yours,
RICHARDSON &':7
~:;::'
KGR:pjb
cc:Board of Directors
ressed leaves my
ooding,and further
nimproved lots.In
pass and nuisance
previous occasion.
reed Installation of
nd scenario is truly
mprehensive storm
nal environmental
ironmental Impact
erties,both inside
n the handling of
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:Dennis McLean and Kathryn Downs
FROM:Steve Wolowicz
CC:Carolyn Lehr
DATE:January 30,2011
SUBJECT:CC meeting 2/1/11 -item #14 CAFR 6/30/10
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Kathryn and Dennis,
Here are my questions regarding the latest CAFR.(Bear with me this is my last
CAFR to review).
Thanks,
Steve
1.The agenda shows an allocation of 5-minutes for this topic.Has additional
time been anticipated in future meetings or is this it?
Staff Reply:
The FY09-10 CAFR is not scheduled for any future meetings.
2.Is the audit partner scheduled to meet with the Council during our meeting
or only with the audit committee before?
Staff Reply:
In addition to the exit interview with the audit committee,the audit partner
is scheduled to attend the February 1st Council meeting.
3.Page 14-2,Management letter.Congratulations on the non-issuance of a
management letter.Is the letter on internal control over financial reporting
referred to on page 14-3 as Attachment B the one on page 14-163?
Staff Reply:
Thank you.Yes,the Internal Control letter is the last 2 pages of the
agenda item.
4.Page 14-6 Statement of estimated GF reserve is for the current year.Can
you please provide us with the final version for FYE 6-30-2010?(It is
helpful for understand the completion of the year)
Staff Reply:
Yes,the final FY09-10 Statement of Estimated General Fund Reserves is
attached to this late correspondence.
02/01111 8:24 AM IY
5.Page 14-4 (last paragraph)to 14-5.Is the savings of $411,000 a deferral
of these costs or of outright reduction of costs?
Staff Reply:
This would be best classified as a reduction of costs.However,the
favorable variance does not necessarily mean that budgeted expenditures
were over-estimated by the same amount.Staff will evaluate the causes
of the favorable variance during the FY11-12 budget process.FY09-10
maintenance projects that were not completed in FY09-10 were carried
forward to FY10-11 as continued appropriations.
6.Page 14-10,first point under Community Development.Has the
management contract with the PVPLC been completed?
Staff Reply:
The management agreement has not been completed.The Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy made some additional changes that are
currently under review by the City Attorney and the Community
Development Director.It is tentatively scheduled for City Council
consideration on the March 15th agenda.
7.Page 14-10,last point on page.Was the oversized vehicle parking
program actually implemented or deferred until the fees issues are
established?
Staff Reply:
The oversize vehicle program is currently in the process of being
implemented.The fees for the program were adopted by the City Council
on March 2,2010.
8.Page 14-23 financial highlight,second point regarding gain on transfer of
property.I understand the difference between our original basis of roughly
$700,000 but it is not clear as to how the gain is computed.(I thought we
are credited for contributing it to the project but how was the transfer
amount set and does it count in a computation of book gain?)
Staff Reply:
The Redevelopment Agency's cost (carrying amount)for acquisition of the
Crestridge Property was $702,392.The property was transferred for
consideration of $2,990,000 (a note receivable).
9.Page 14-23,contingent liability.Has our City Attorney signed off on this?
Staff Reply:
Yes,we worked with both the City Attorney and the audit partner to
determine what should be accrued for contingent liabilities.
02/01/11 8:24 AM
10.(Very minor item -appears we all missed this in prior years).Page 14-57
PVP Transit Authority.There are only three and not four member cities.
Staff Reply:
Thank you.We'll make the correction in the next CAFR.
11.Page 14-65 Note 2 -total cash and investments.In the last two years this
has decreased $6.1 million;however the changes explained throughout
the complete set of FS seem to explain the uses of cash.Is this trend
expected to continue and are there any inferences that should be made?
Staff Reply:
The trend is not likely to continue until a major capital project is
constructed (e.g.Lower Hesse Improvements,Lower San Ramon Canyon
Stabilization,etc.).A couple of non-recurring expenditures have been
made in the last year (e.g.construction loan advances for the Mirandela
senior housing project,payoff of pension side-fund liability,etc.).Large
swings in the overall pooled cash balance are typically due to non-
recurring transactions.
12.Page 14-70 capital assets.There is no separate disclosure of the lot that
was acquired for roughly $1 million as part of the McCarrell Canyon repair
project.Has it now been decided to not sell that lot?
Staff Reply:
The Tarragon parcel acquired as part of the McCarrell Canyon project is
shown as $1,408,493 of land on page 14-71 (carried in the Water Quality
Flood Protection fund).No decision has been made regarding the future
use/sale of this parcel.
13.Page 14-77,Note #7 Pensions.We have Mr.Bartle's letter identifying the
potential unfunded vested benefits (side fund)amount arising from
participating in the "pool."Did our auditors conclude this liability is
"remote"and does not warrant disclosure?
Staff Reply:
The CalPERS risk pool's unfunded liability is not a current liability of the
City.There is currently no requirement to disclose the risk pool's
unfunded liability,or the City's proportionate share of that liability,in the
City's Notes to Financial Statements.Without a separate actuarial
valuation of the City's participation in the plan,the City's potential share of
the pool's unfunded liability can only be estimated.It's important to note,
the calculation of the risk pool's unfunded liability is a year behind the date
of the City's CAFR.
02/01/11 8:24 AM
14.Page 14-78,Pension -health savings plan.(Minor item).It is stated that
employees "are required to contribute ..." I thought their participation was
only voluntary.
Staff Reply:
Employees are required to make the 1%salary contribution.Participation
in the program is not voluntary.
15.Page 14-82,new note #10 Proposition 1A.(Nice note).Justto be c1ear-
at this time the city received a loan that effectively reimbursed us for the
taxes that the state took under 1A.Are we cash-out-of pocket and have a
receivable from the state at this time?
Staff Reply:
The City sold its Proposition 1A receivable from the State for cash.That
cash made our property tax revenue whole;and now the City no longer
has a Proposition 1A receivable from the State.
16.Page 14-149.There is a sharp increase in "assessed value as percentage
of actual value"from 75%to 95%.Also on page 14-152,"total collections
to date"has decreased 10%in the last two years.Do those trends warrant
any comment in MD&A or consideration in bUdget planning?
Staff Reply:
Page 14-149
The statistical information presented in the CAFR is not audited.For
many of the statistics,including assessed value as a percentage of actual
value,we rely on information purchased from vendors who specialize in
compiling these kinds of statistics for city financial statements.We
changed vendors for FY09-10,as we were not satisfied with the
information provided by the previous vendor.We believe that the vendors
have differing methodologies for compiling the information;and
unfortunately,we have no access to data or a method to validate their
numbers.We have been advised by the independent auditor and
guidance from the Governmental Finance Officers'Association that
changes in statistical methodology do not require re-calculation/re-
statement of past years.
Page 14-152
When past due amounts are collected in future years,the ratio of "Total
Collections to Date"will grow each year.For example,some FY09-10
amounts will be collected in FY1 0-11;which will be added to the 2010
"Total Collections to Date".I expect that in next years'CAFR,the 2010
figure will no longer be 90.41 %.I would also expect that the 2011 figure
will make its debut in the chart close to 90%.
02/01/11 8:24 AM
FY09·10 Statement of Estimated General Fund Reserves Attachment A
(522,623)
Ending
Reserves
80,610
927,14673,681
Revenues
1,265,382
Beginning
Reserves
91712010
2/1/2010
5/10/2010
11/17/2009
11/17/2009
11/17/2009
Evaluate Citywide Sewer Fee
Adjustments:
Retirement Health Savings Retroactive
Contribution
Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park
Conceptual Design
FY08-09 Results 1/19/2010
Geotechnical Review of Monks Plaintiffs'
Landslide Moratorium Exception A Iications 12/15/2009
FY09-10 Final Results
FY09-10 Year-End Ad'ustments
Redevelopment Agency Payment to the State's
Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
Zone 2 EIR for Landslide Moratorium
Ordinance Revisions 4/6/2010E:-'-'7-=-'''-''-~F=:=--07::o:_:__-__;_____;;,__--t----'':::::=::-:-::+-------II__------------'",=~'=?+---Park Ranger Services (120-day contract)4/6/2010
Terranea TOT 3/2/2010 1,800,000b:'::.:.;-=::..=:::,-:-,;:-:.-:----:--=-:,__-------t---7:::::=::-:-::+-------I__---'-!;~c_=_:~I__---____=_=:___=_::_I_--__:_=_c__=_=_=_+----~-~Midyear Adjustments -Other 3/2/2010 (295,499
Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park
Conce tual Design 4/20/2010 ---+---:c-=c~~Lf-------..--
rP--=e::cn.=sic::o=-:.n-=S--=id:.::e-:-F--=u::cn::::d-=L:::ia"'ib::;i1:::oity'-'-pa=:,y'-"o::cff +-_--=5::-/4"'/2=::0=-:1-=0t---t-+--+_--'-'-'-"'=:=Lf-._
Net Transfers include both operating transfers from and to the General fund,Originally budgeted Net Transfers are adjusted when staff becomes aware that
an additional operatin transfer is needed to satis an unantici ated shortfall within another fund;and that shortfall must be funded with General fund monies.
Ending Reserves are the estimated 6/30/10 General fund reserves at the time of budget adoption,Adjusted Ending Reserves is a calculation based on
subse uent ad'ustments to Be innin Reserves Revenues Ex enditures and Net Transfers.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JANUARY 31,2011
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday,February 1,2011 City Council meeting:
Item No.
11
13
Description of Material
Letter from Dept.of Fish and Game;Emails from:Kathy
Snell;Jeremy Davies;Cassie Jones and Lewis Enstedt
Answers to questions posed by Councilman Wolowicz;
Letter to John Williams/Kiwanis Club of Rolling Hills Estates
Respectfully submitted,
a4?Jr~Carl Morreale
W:\AGENDA\2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\2011 0201 additions revisions to agenda through Mondayafternoon.doc
01/28/2011 17:12 18584574239 DEPT OF FISH &GAME PAGE 02
RECEIVED
JAN 28 2011
PlANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Edmund G.Brown.lr..Governor.,,,...
John McCamman,Director
January 28,2011-
Mr.Kit Fox
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Solevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Fax#:(310)544/5293
Subject:Notice of Preparation for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zone 2
Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions Environment Impact Report
(SCH#2010121073),los Angeles County
State of California -The Natural Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
South Coast Region
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego,CA 92123
{SSS}467-4201
www.dfg.ca.gov
i'
Dear Mr.Fox:
The Department has received the Notice of Preparation (NOP)for the Environment Impact
Report (EIR)for the proposed revisions to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zone 2 Landslide
Moratorium Ordinance.The revisions would allow the submittal of landslide moratorium
exceptions for 47 undeveloped or underdeveloped lots on 114 acres in an area located north of
the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive South and Narcissa Drive within City limits.Approval of
the moratorium wo~ld potentially allow development of the lots,many of which are covered by
ornamental landscaping,roads and structural development.However,some of the lots are
adjacent to Altamira Canyon,which supports native vegetation,and some contain native
vegetation that abut conserved areas that are included in the City's Natural Community
Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP-HCP).These NCCP-HCP reserve
lands are known to support special status species such as the federal threatened coastal
California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica/CAGN),the federal endangered Palos
Verde blue butterfly (GJaucopsycha Iygdamus paJosverdesensislPVB),and the state species of
special concern coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillusiCACW).
The Department is California's trustee agency for fish and Wildlife resources,holding these
resources in trust for the People of State pursuant to various provisions of the California Fish
and Game Code [Fish &Game.Code,§§711.7,subd.(a),1802].The following comments
have been prepared pursuant to the Department's authority as Trustee Agency With respect to
natural resources affected by the project [California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
Guidelines §15386 and generally ,Public Resources Code (PRe)§§21070;21080.4]and
pursuant to our authority as a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines §15381 and PRC
§21069 over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of the
California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code §2050 at.seq.)and Fish and Game
Code §1600 et.seq.The Department also administers the Neep Program (Fish and Game
Code §2800 at.seq.).The City of Rancho Palos Verdes participates in the NCC?Program
through its draft NCCP-HCP,which is anticipated to be completed in 2011.
To ensure the project is consistent With the City'S NCCP-HCP,1600 requirements and other
applicable provisions of the Fish and Game Code (e.g.,§3503),we recommend that the
following information be included in the draft EIR and/or technical appendices,and included as
CEQA mitigation and/or project permit conditions for future development that would be allowed
under the proposed Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions (where applicable):
Conserving Ca{ifornia's WiCrf{ife Since 1870
()f li'I I
01/28/2011 17:12 18584674239 DEPT OF FISH &GAME PAGE 03
Mr.Kit Fox
January 28,2011
Page 2 of6
A.NCCP-HCP Consistency
1.The project area appears to be located outside of,but immediately adjacent to areas that are
to be included in the City's approximately 1,400 reserve system for the NCCP-HCP (See
Section 4.2 of the City's Draft NCCP-HCP (Plan».Specifically,the project would be located
adjacent and to the south of the Portuguese Bend reserve (398-acres),portions of the Upper
Filiorum reserve (190-acres),and other areas expected to be included as part of the reserve,
such as the 4D-acre conservation area (with a 300-foot functional corridor connecting to the
Abalone Cove reserve)associated with development on the Lower Filiorum site (See Section
5.3.1 of the Plan)and the 30-acres of land to be conserved as part of the future Plumtree
development (See Section 5.3.5 of the Plan).This area of the 1,4DO-acre City reserve system
contains known populations of CAGN,PVB and CACW,as well several sensitive plant species.
In addition,a portion of the core area within the Portuguese Bend reserve that supports
important populations of sensitive fauna species burned in August 2009,Subsequently,some
of these existing populations may have shifted to remnant patches of SUitable habitat on the
perimeter of the reserve that did not burn.It is expected that these populations could recover
within Portuguese Bend with adequate restoration of habitat;however,this will take time as the
habitat needs to mature.
2.Due to the location of the project adjacent to existing and planned areas of the City's NCCP-
HCP reserve system,we recommend that a complete,recent assessment of flora and fauna
Within and adjacent to the project area be conducted and the results included in the EIR,with
particular emphasis upon identifying potential impacts to federal and state endangered,
threatened,and locally unique species and sensitive habitats as outlined in the City's NCCP-
HC?These species include,but are not limited to,the following which are anticipated to
receive coverage under the City's NCCP-HCP:
•Aphanisma,Aphanisma blitoides,CNPS List 1B
•South Coast Saltscale,Atriplex pac/fica,CNPS List 1B
•Catalina Crossosoma,Crossosoma cal/forn;cum,CNPS List 1B
•Island Green Dudleya,DUd/eya v/rens ssp.insularis,CNPS List 1B
•Santa Catalina Island Desert-thorn,Lyeiurn brevipes var.hassef,CNPS List 18
•Woolly Seablite,Suaeda tax/folia,CNPS List 4
•Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly,G/aucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis.FE
•EI Segundo Blue Butterfly,Euphilotes battoides allyni,FE
"Coastal Cactus Wren,Campylorhynchus brunneicapiIJus,NCCP Focal Species,Species
of Special Concern,and
..Coastal California Gnatcatcher.Polioptila eal/fom/ca eal/rom/oB,FT,NCCP Focal
Species,Species of Special Concern.
3.To assess the full range of potential Impacts to sensitive flora and fauna from the project,
seasonal variations in use within and adjacent to the project area should also be analyzed in the
EIR.CEQA Guidelines,§15125(a),direct that knowledge of the regional setting is critical to an
assessment of environmental impacts and that special emphasis should be placed on resources
that are rare or unique to the region.All surveys should be recent,focused,and for sensitive
species,conducted in suitable habitat at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the
species are active or otherwise identifiable.Guidance on conducting these surveys can be
found in the following resources:
01/28/2011 17:12 18584574239 DEPT OF FISH &GAME PAGE 04
Mr.Kit Fox
January 28,2011
Page 3 of6
a)The City's draft NCCP-HCP (Section 5.0 and 7.0 of the Plan);
b)The Department's Guidelines for Assessing Impacts to Rare Plants and Rare Natural
Communities (Attachment 1,Plant Survey Protocol)..
c)Endangered,rare,and threatened species which meet the related definition under the
CEQA Guidelines (See Cal.Code Regs.,Title 14,§15380).
d)The Department's Biogeographic Data Branch in Sacramento should be contacted at
(916)322-2493 (l!\Ml.W.df,g,ca.gov/biogeodata)to obtain current information on any
previously reported sensitive species and habitats,including Significant Natural Areas
identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code.
4.To ensure the project would be consistent with,and would not result in direct or indirect
impacts that are beyond the scope of the City's NCCP-HCP,the following should be analyzed
and dIsclosed in the EIR:
a)The project's consistency with SectIons 5.2.15 (Fuel Modification);5.6 (Restrictions and
Requirements for Projects/Activities Abutting and Adjacent to the Preserve);5.7 (Habitat
Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures);and,6.3.3 (Interim Resource Protection),of
the City's NCCP-HCP;
b)The Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions are not identified as a specific
covered project in Section 5.0 (Covered Activities)of the City's NCCP-HCP.However,
Section 5.2.20 (Other Miscellaneous City Projects)of the Plan notes that there could be
unidentified City projects in the future that ccould be covered provided that they comply with
the Plan and impacts do not exceed certain limits.The EIR should provide an analysis
disclosing how the project would be consistent with this section and other provisions of the
City's NCCP-HCP.
B.Impact Analysis
1.A thorough discussion of direct,indirect,and cumulative impacts to biological resources,
including the City's NCCP-HCP preserve system and jurisdictional 1600 areas,should be
provided in the EIR,including specific mitigation measures/permit conditions to offset such
impacts [See CEQA Guidelines §15125(a)and §15130].This discussion should focus on
maximizing avoidance,and minimizing impacts and cover the following topiCS (See also
Comment A4).
a)Analysis shOUld address the potential cumUlative impact from other areas within or
adjacent to the City's NCCP-HCP reseNe being removed from the Zone 2 landslide areas in
the future;
b)Project impacts should also be analyzed relative to their effects on off-site habitats,plant
and animal populations,and conseNed lands.Specifically,this should include potential
direct and indirect impacts to nearby public and private lands to be included in the City's
NCCP-HCP (See Comment A 1),designated open space,adjacent natural habitats,and
riparian ecosystems.Impacts to and maintenance of wildlife corridor/movement areas,
including access to undisturbed habitat in adjacent areas,should also be assessed.The
analysis should also cover potential impacts resulting from such effects as increased vehicle
traffic,outdoor artificial lighting,noise,and vibration (e.g.,during construction).
01/28/2011 17:12 18584574239 DEPT OF FISH &GAME PAGE 05
Mr.Kit Fox
January 28,2011
Page 4 of6
c)The proposed project includes areas located adjacent to lands that are to be included in
the City's NCCP-HCP preserve as either baseline public lands or lands to be dedicated in
the future as part of private development.These areas include the Portuguese Bend
reserve,Upper Filiorum reserve,40-acres on the Lower Filiorum site,and 3D-acres (with a
300-foot-wide corridor)on the Plumtree development site (See also Comment A 1).The
DEIR should analyze potential direct and indirect impacts to these lands and provide
mitigation measures and/or permit conditions to ensure that the proposed Zone 2 Landslide
Moratorium Ordinance Revisions and subsequent development allowed through the
revisions do not impact these reserve lands.Specifically,the EIR should evaluate potential
direct and indirect impacts to:a)terrestrial,aquatic and avian wildlife corridors;b)cowbird
parasitism;c)fuel/brush clearing;d)public access,including new/unplanned trail
connections and increased use on designated trails;e)non-native species and domestic
animals;f)drainage,lighting and noise sources;g)manUfactured/engineered slopes,
grading and erosion;and,h)facility operation and maintenance (See Also Comment A4).
d)Impacts to migratory wildlife affected by the project should be fully evaluated including
proposals to remove/disturb native habitat (e.g.,coastal sage scrub,chaparral,non-native
grassland and riparian areas)and ornamental landscaping (e.g.,eucalyptus trees)and other
potential nesting habitat for native birds~The impact analysis Should also address any
migratory butterfly roost sites and neo-tropical bird and waterfowl stop-over and staging
sites.All migratory non-game native bird species are protected by international treaty under
the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)of 1918 (50 C.F.R.Section 10.13).Also,
§§3503,3503.5 and 3513 of the Fish and Game Code prohibit take of birds and their active
nests,inclUding raptors and other migratory nongame birds as listed under the MBTA.
e)To minimize the potential for direct and indirect impacts to avian species,we
recommend that the project include as a mitigation measure that proposed project activities
(inclUding subsequent disturbances to vegetation on Individual lots covered under the
ordinance reviSions)should take place outSide of the breeding bird season (January 31~
September 30)to avoid take (including disturbances which would cause abandonment of
active nests containing eggs and/or young).If project actiVities cannot avoid the breeding
bird season,nest surveys shOUld be conducted and active nests should be avoided and
provided With a minimum buffer as determined by a biological monitor (the Department
recommends a minimum 5QO·foot buffer for all active raptor nests).Although not considered
a sensitive habitat per se,there are a number of eucalyptus and other trees in and adjacent
to the project site that may provide nesting,perching and other functions for raptors and
other avian species.(See also Comment A4).
f)To minimize potential confllcts With the City's NCCP-HCP,including the fuel modification
activities that are currently anticipated as a covered activity [see Sections 5.2.15 (Fuel
Modification)and 5.3.3 (Fuel Modification for Private Projects throughout the City)of the
Plan],we recommend that all required City and County fuel clearing areas be included in the
lots covered under the project so they do not encroach onto public or private lands that are
to be included in the City's NCCP-HCP preserve.Moreover,where stands of native cacti
exist,we recommend they be retained and incorporated into any required fuel clearing areas
to provide as rnuch habitat as possible for the cactus wren,as a SUbstantial amount of its
cactus scrub habitat in the area burned in the August 2009 Portuguese Bend fire.
01/28/2011 17:12 18584574239 DEPT OF FISH &GAME PAGE 05
Mr.Kit Fox
January 28,2011
Page 50f6
g)Future development allowed through the proposed Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium
Ordinance Revisions should not result in redundant/duplicate access to Portuguese Bend,
Upper Filiorum or other lands that are to be included in the City's NCCP-HCP.
C.Project Alternatives
1.The EIR should adequately analyze a reasonable range of alternatives which avoid or
otherwise minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources,including wetlands/riparian
habitats,alluvial scrub,cactus scrub,coastal sage scrub,non-native grassland and wildlife
movement (both terrestrial and avian).Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in
areas with lower resource sensitIvity,where appropriate (See CEQA Guidelines §15126.6).
2.An Incidental Take Permit from the Department may be required jf the project (and
associated activities during the life of the project)would result in "take"as defined by the Fish
and Game Code of any species protected by CESA [Fish &G.Code,§§86,2080,2081,subd.
(b),(c)]and plants listed as rare under the NatIve Plant Protection Act of 1977 (Fish and Game
Code §§1900-1913).The draft EIR should include a thorough analysis of potentially significant
impacts to endangered,rare,and threatened species,and their habitat,that may occur as a
result of the proposed project guided by the City's NCCP-HCP.
D.1600/Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement
1.The Department recommends the avoidance of all jurisdictional watercourses (including
concrete channels,blue line streams and other watercourses not designated as blue line
streams on USGS maps)and/or the channelization of natural and manmade drainages or
conversion to subsurface drains.All wetlands and watercourses,whether intermittent,
ephemeral,or perennial,should be retained and provided with substantial setbacks which
preserve the riparian and aquatic habitat values and maintain their value to on-site and off~site
wildlife populations.The Department recommends a minimum natural buffer of 100-feet from
the outside edge of the riparian zone on each side of drainage.
2.For any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural flow,or change the bed,channel,or
bank (which may include associated riparian resources)or a river or stream or use material from
a streambed,the project applicant (or "entity")must provide written notification to the
Department pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code.Based on this notification
and other information,the Department then determines whether a Lake and Streambed
Alteration (LSA)Agreement is required.The Department's issuance of an LSA is a project
subject to CEQA.To facilitate issuance of an Agreement,if necessary,the EI R should fully
identify the potential impacts to the lake,stream or riparian resources and provide adequate
avoidance,mitigation,monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the Agreement.
Early consultation is recommended,since modification of the proposed project may be required
to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources.Failure to include this analysis in the
Project environmental impact report could preclude the Department from relying on the City's
analysis to issue an Agreement without the Department first conducting its own,separate lead
agency subsequent or supplemental analySis for the Project.
01/28/2011 17:12 18584574239 DEPT OF FISH &GAME PAGE 07
Mr.Kit Fox
January 28,2011
Page 6 of6
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the NOP for the proposed Zone 2
Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions.For questions regarding CEQA/1600 Issues raised
in this letter,please contact Mr.Scott Harris,Environmental Scientist,at (626)797-3170
SPHarris@dfg.ca.gov.For questions related to the NCCP program,please contact Randy F.
ROdriguez ,at (858)437-2751/RFR~dri9uez@dfg.ca.90v.
i'I1t~_LJil
,~lmrnen .Juarez
Environmental Program Manager
South Coast Region
Attachment
cc;Ms.Helen Birss,Los Alamitos
Ms.Terri Dickerson,Laguna Niguel
Ms.Kelly Schmoker,Pasadena
Mr.Randy RodriguezlNCCP
Mr.Scott HarriS,Pasadena
Mr.Rick Mayfield,Oxnard
HabCon-Chron,Department/SCB
State Clearinghouse,Sacramento
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Greg Pfost [gregp@rpv.com]
Monday,January 31,2011 3:57 PM
'Carla Morreale';'Teri Takaoka'
'Kit Fox'
FW:Scope of EIR for proposed Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions
Hi Carla and/or Teri-
Here is late correspondence for Kit's item on the 2/1 CC meeting.
Thanks.
-Greg.
Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost,AICP
Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:ksneII0001@aol.com [mailto:ksneII0001@aol.coml
Sent:Monday,January 31,2011 3:49 PM
To:kitf@rpv.comi planning@rpv.com
Subject:Scope of EIR for proposed Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions
The EIR is inadequate because it purposely is not including potential development in Zone
2 for those parcels at 8,10,20 &98 Vanderlip Drive
that would be entitled to lot splits in the future.By eliminating parcels
in Zone 2 that will be split into one acre lots in the future from the scope of the EIR,
the EIR is incomplete and does not properly represent the potential true impact of the
future building in Zone 2.These parcels have much more stable land than all of the 47
lots that are being allowed to build homes.
A lot split was recorded in 1989 for John Vanderlip AFTER the moratorium was placed 4
years prior.
-Staff's Response 7 on page 10-76 that parcel map creating the 2 parcels was
recorded in 1982 is incorrect.
Staff commented that Mr.Vanderlip was granted his lot split after the moratorium because
he submitted his paper prior to the moratorium.Since William Roberts,10 Vanderlip,
submitted his request for lot splits prior to the moratorium,why wasn't Mr.Roberts
allowed the same courtesy to complete his lot splits as was Mr.Vanderlip?
Why is RPV RDA receiving tax increment monies to ".clear the blight.II but won't allow lot
splits to 1 acre minimum so the property owners can build on stable land (Vanderlip
Drive)?The justification of RDA was to stabilize the property and open up building.
Roads,utilities and sewer laterals are in place for the 15 new building sites on
Vanderlip Dr.in anticipation of granting lot splits so these parcels need to be included
in the EIR impact.
Why can't the owners of the more stable property on Vanderlip Drive be allowed to apply
for lot splits as outlined in the Community Redevelopment Plan?
The area above upper Narcissa (Vanderlip Dr.)had no land movement and has not moved in
modern times.
This EIR is incomplete without evaluating all of the potential home sites in Zone 2 based
on RPV zoning.By not including the potential home sites in the EIR,the true impact in
the EIR can not be evaluated.
Response 9 page 10-78 from Staff
Q \(
"In addition,the system was not designed to accommodate the
subdivision of existing lots."
The sewer system was designed to accommodate the subdivision of existing parcels within
the ACLAD boundries except for Zone 1.That is why additional sewer laterals were
physically installed for 8,10 and 20 for future development.Those laterals are still in
place on the property and can be viewed if your records are incomplete.
The parcel at the end East end of Narcissa was also figured into the sewer capacity based
on 1 acre per building site.
Sincerely,
Kathy Snell
8 Vanderlip Driveway
Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca 90275
310 707 8876
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
SUbject:
Attachments:
Greg Pfost [gregp@rpv.com]
Monday,January 31,2011 3:59 PM
'Teri Takaoka';'Carla Morreale'
'Kit Fox'
FW:Zone 2 CEQA EIR for Proposed Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions
ZONE 2 DRAFT EIR.doc
ZONE 2 DRAFr
ErR.doc (41 KB)
Teri and/or Carla-
Here is another late correspondence for Kit's item.
Thanks.
-Greg.
Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost,AICP
Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:Jeremy Davies [mailto:jdavies@kuboaa.comJ
Sent:Monday,January 31,2011 10:51 AM
To:Kit Fox
Cc:planning@rpv.com;Kelly Richardson
Subject:Zone 2 CEQA EIR for Proposed Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions
Dear Mr Fox
Firstly,thank you for the opportunity to submit concerns and
recommendations regarding the scoping of the EIR on Zone 2 contained in the
Initial Study dated December 2010.
I attach a memorandum containing input on the scope of the environmental
issues contained in the Initial Study Document dated December 2010 prepared
by the City with the Assistance of Rincon Consultants Inc.
My overall concerns are:
1)The scope of the EIR is limited in a narrow manner to a block of land
designated as Zone 2 as though this land mass is independent of all
surrounding areas.Two of these surrounding areas provide the only access to
Zone 2 which is abutted by two active landslides (Abalone Cove and
Portuguese Bend-Zones 5 &6)through which all traffic,including heavy
construction vehicles,will have to pass.These access roads are some 60
years old and were not designed for additional development and have recently
required significant asphalt infill to compensate sinking land due to
landslide movement and traffic.In addition,in the case of Peppertree (Zone
6), a fissure and sink hole appeared during the recent heavy rains and
after the infill.The traffic conditions section of the EIR should spell out
the fact that access is through roads in active landslide zones and should
evaluate the impact of increased traffic including heavy construction
equipment and detail the mitigating actions necessary.In addition,it
should also be noted that multiple attempts to reduce land movement and
fissures with dewatering wells,other measures and a recent (July 2010)
Q I{
$215,000 grading and planting project on PV Drive South in part of the
Portuguese Bend landslide was completed.Despite this latest project to
reduce fissures,significant repairs have again been necessary in January
2010 to keep the road drivable and the annual costs of repairs are
increasing (City data).In October 2009 The Peninsula News reported that the
City has spent more than $10 million in repairs to this road since City
incorporation as a result of constant land movement.
2)Storm water run off from additional structures will end up entering
Altamira Canyon,together with existing run off from above Portuguese Bend
and existing residences,and will enter into the the land in Zones 5 and 6
referred to above.There is extensive documented discussion of the concerns
surrounding Altamira Canyon over the years,of mitigation actions needed to
reduce the land destabilization from water run off entering the canyon and
which have not taken place.The scope of the hydrology section of the EIR
requires to include the Altamira Canyon matter,including the gross impact
of all possible future developments (see below)and the mitigating actions
needed.The impact on the existing dewatering wells requires addressing and
determination whether additional wells are needed and if not why not.
3)The City is aware of and has supporting evidence that there are several
additional probable or possible housing development requests in areas
surrounding Zone 2 (Plumtree,York,Downhill,Vanderlip,Yamaguchi),
including possible rezoning requests to facilitate further development (the
LA Times estimates more than an additional 130 lots on which owners would
like to build).The draft EIR is largely silent on these matters and
concentrates only on the future development potential of the 47 lots in Zone
2.There is an indirect reference to "any new development"on page 28 of the
Initial Study.However,the gross cumulative impact of such additional
probable and possible new developments is required under CEQA.The City
needs to explain why such additional possible developments are excluded from
this EIR and why the cumulative impact of these developments is not
significant.The alternative is to include them in this EIR,detail the
assumptions used and consider the gross environmental impact and mitigation
actions necessary.
4)The City is the CEQA lead Agency in this EIR.It is important that the
public understands the degree and detailed scope of EIR topics in which the
"independent"consultants are to be used (Rincon?)and their role versus the
City's role.If independent consultants are to be used what restrictions is
the City placing on them?If independent consultants are not to be used the
City needs to explain why in the interests of transparency.
5)The Initial Study identifies a number of "Potentially Significant"
impacts in the Transportation,Geology and Hydrology sections.Because of
the unique geological and soil conditions and their inter relationship,a
subset of scope considerations need to be developed with input from
organizations such as ACLAD and specialist geological experts and soil
experts.These scope considerations should be included in the next iteration
of the EIR for the public to provide input during the next phase of review.
Detailed comments and requests for additional scope considerations are
attached.
Yours sincerely,
Jeremy Davies
RPV CITY ZONE 2 DRAFT EIR
INITIAL STUDY
JANUARY 2011
Requests for scope clarification,modification and additions to the above submitted by Jeremy
Davies of36 Cinnamon Lane,RPV,CA 90275.Page references are stated at left.
Page 1 Project Location:The project location description and accompanying maps should include
the location of the active landslide areas which abut Zone 2.Without this additional information
the EIR implies that Zone 2 is a discrete land mass in isolation from surrounding environmental,
geological,structural and soil conditions and therefore misleading to any reader/user of the EIR.
Page 4 Surrounding Land Uses This section is silent on probable or possible additional
development requests that are well known and documented by the City (Plumtree,York,
Downhill,Vanderlip,Yamaguchi).To ignore this information and its cumulative gross impact
together with the current project will invalidate the EIR in accordance with CEQA requirements
and appropriate environmental mitigation requirements.The City needs to modify the scope of
the EIR to include all these possible developments and specify the assumptions used for
estimating the gross impact,including the impacts on sewer,water supply and fire protection
requirements,of these additional possible developments.
Page 8 The City believed that the Monks building applications would be spread out over a long
period of time.In fact the 16 applications have taken a very short period of time to materialize.
The build out development period of at least 10 years for the 47 properties may take a lot less
based on the timing of the Monks building permit application and approval process.A sensitivity
analysis in the scope of the EIR using a range of timelines should used for determining the
cumulative environmental impacts.
Page 8 refers to "ranch style"residences.Recently,however,the City has been approving
Mediterranean styles for certain of the "Monks"lot owners.I would hope that the EIR will
reconfirm the preference for ranch style residences rather than Mediterranean style to ensure that
the integrity/integration of new development with existing homes is retained.
Page 9 reference to set backs must acknowledge that the PBCA Architectural Standards establish
their criteria for setbacks to maintain the harmonious nature of the community.For example
minimum interior side set backs are 20ft not 5ft.
Page 9 mentions that the "City has been ordered to remove regulatory impediments in its
Municipal Code that prevent development of the 16 Monks Plaintiffs lots".However,the City
has not been ordered to ignore CEQA requirements and has included the Monks lots in this EIR
to provide a conservative analysis.However,all other probable/possible developments should be
included to provide a "conservative"impact analysis and without these other developments,
among others matters,there is no "conservative"analysis.
Page 9 Taking into consideration all other possible developments that could impact Altamira
Canyon and run off into the ocean through increased storm water runoff volumes and
contaminates the EIR should reassess whether other agencies will require to be involved.
Page 9 The Initial Study identifies a number of "Potentially Significant"impacts in the
Transportation,Geology and Hydrology sections.Because of the unique geological and soil
conditions and their inter relationship,a subset of scope considerations need to be developed with
input from organizations such as ACLAD and specialist geological experts and soil experts.
These scope considerations should be included in the next iteration of the EIR for the public to
provide input during the next phase of review.
Page 18 item e)is considered a less than significant impact.However,a sewer system was put
into the area in 2002 as part of the landslide abatement program and homes were removed from
septic tanks and fields.There is evidence that the sewer system is currently inadequate to support
the existing homes volume (see letters to the Public Works Department from residents after a
pumping station failed more than once).Therefore this issue requires more extensive evaluation
through the EIR process with hard data based on existing flows as well as the project and all other
possible developments taken into account.This is a "potentially significant impact"not "less than
significant impact".
Pages 18 and 19 require a more extensive discussion of the fact that Zone 2 is abutted by existing
active landslides,one of which has migrated upwards above Palos Verdes Drive South.
Page 23 item h)the EIR scope should include an assessment of the requirements for new
developments required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department,for example the code
requirement for hydrant spacing,the adequacy of required water flows through the existing
hydrant infrastructure,fire hydrant code for pipe sizes.For example there are cuI de sacs that are
more than the required distance from hydrants that will contain new residences.Water flow
calculations for fire protection should be based upon the existing infrastructure in the PBCA and
not generalized City wide water supply and demand calculations used in page 38.Also see
comments on page 33 regarding Captain Avila's conclusion and the need for the EIR to spell out
the assumptions used by Captain Avila in arriving at his conclusion.
Page 24 The scope should include the mitigating actions to minimize the chance of flooding
existing residences as a result of large driveways runoff,particularly those locations for new
residences on steep slopes such as upper Cinnamon Lane.
Storm water run off from additional structures will end up entering Altamira Canyon together
with existing run off from above Portuguese Bend and existing residences and will enter into the
land in Zones 5 and 6 referred to above.There is extensive documented discussion of the
concerns surrounding Altamira Canyon over the years (e.g.Horan Settlement),of mitigation
actions needed to reduce the land destabilization from water run off entering the Canyon and
which have not taken place.The scope of the hydrology section of the EIR should include the
gross impact of all possible future developments (see below)on Altamira Canyon,Zones 5 and
6,and on the existing dewatering wells operated by ACLAD,and determination of mitigation
actions.
Calculations of run off in heavy storm conditions should be factored into the EIR on the basis of
all possible developments and its impact on Altamira Canyon and the residences adjacent to the
Canyon as well as the capability of the Canyon to withstand significant additional run off which
currently goes directly into the soils of the undeveloped lots.
Page 25 b)should be considered potentially significant impact as it conflicts with the cUrrent land
use and planning category which is designated under a building moratorium.
Page 27 would be further strengthened by inserting reference to compliance with the PBCA
Architectural Standards as referred to in the City's Notice of Preparation.
Page 28 refers to "any new development"which reinforces the need for all possible "new
developments"to be included in the scope of the EIR for determining "gross environmental
impact"and for determining mitigation actions.
Page 29 refers to the parcel being served by a sanitary sewer system and concludes that impacts
would be less than significant and "that further discussion in an EIR is not warranted".I
respectfully disagree and believe that there is not adequate detailed evidence that the existing
sanitary sewer system can support additional development,particularly given repeated reported
failures,that the grinder pump company has openly stated that were they involved again from the
outset that the existing technology would not be used etc.The sewer system was put in as a
mitigating element to reduce ground water from septic fields etc.entering the land and
contributing to landslide movement.
Page 31 refers to noise but is silent on the potential impact of potential damaging compaction
processes being adopted.The EIR should address earlier comments from residents regarding the
use of very heavy compaction equipment and introduce mitigating processes to avoid
unnecessary damage to existing and approved new residences through inappropriate compaction
processes for the soil conditions in Zone 2.
Page 32 item a).Please see earlier comments on page 23 regarding fire protection.I believe that
item a)should be "potentially significant impact"requiring deeper analysis in the EIR and if
necessary mitigating actions to be spelt out.
Page 33 refers to a conclusion made by Captain Avila on November 17,2010 that "the addition
of 47 residences in Zone 2 would not require new or expanded fire facilities".In the interests of
transparency,Captain Avila's letter,report (?)and assumptions used to come to this conclusion
should be included in the EIR for the public to understand and assess the adequacy of the scope
of his study in arriving at this conclusion.
Page 37 item d)should be "potentially significant impact"and address the specific flow
characteristics of the PBCA development and not be based upon generalized WBMWD City
information.The water delivery infrastructure was built some 50160 years ago and both the water
supply for general use and fire protection purposes,including hydrant size and spacing should be
demonstrated to be adequate for the project and specifically for this high fire hazard area.The
City in commenting on a recent request for planning permission by a resident on Thyme Place
raised concerns about the current water delivery system not being capable of delivering adequate
pressure for the requested bathrooms.
Page 41 b)is limited to the project and ignores other !mown current developments and potential
developments (e.g.Plumtree,York,Downhill,Vanderlip,Yamguchi).The potentially cumulative
impacts of these together with the project require analysis.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Greg Pfost [gregp@rpv.com]
Monday,January 31,2011 4:00 PM
'Teri Takaoka';'Carla Morreale'
'Kit Fox'
FW:Comments on Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions Initial Study Dec.2010
Teri and/or Carla-
Here is another correspondence regarding Kit's item on the 2/1 meeting.
Thanks.
-Greg.
Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost,AICP
Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:cassiej@aol.com [mailto:cassiej@aol.comJ
Sent:Sunday,January 30,2011 1:15 PM
To:planning@rpv.com
Subject:Fwd:Comments on Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions Initial Study
Dec.2010
I also sent this to Kit Fox,but as he is out of town,I have also forwarded
it to the Planning Dept.
-----Original Message-----
From:cassiej@aol.com
To:kitf@rpv.com
Sent:Sun,Jan 30,2011 1:07 pm
Subject:Comments on Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions Initial
Study Dec.2010
To:Kit Fox,Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes
From:Cassie Jones &Lewis Enstedt,Rancho Palos Verdes
Re:Comments on Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions Initial
Study Dec.2010
Comments regarding this Initial Study:
Surrounding Land Uses
The description of the surrounding properties is incomplete.The properties
to the NE,E,SE,S,Wand NW are described.However,the property to the
north of the project has been glaringly omitted and it is of utmost
importance.We believe the Plumtree property,as it is known,is
residentially zoned and completely landlocked except for access through the
Portuguese Bend Community.It is immediately adjacent to at least 7 of the
47 vacant lots.The City has received information regarding the desire to
subdivide and develop this property and it is reasonably foreseeable that
the cumulative impacts from the project at hand and the development of the
Plumtree property are intimately intertwined so as to be one.Any and allo /1
aesthetic,drainage,water,fire,safety,ecological and environmental
impacts from developing one are virtually the same for developing both,only
on a larger scale.The scope of this project is not complete unless it
includes this very reasonably foreseeable development.Additionally,the
subject property is accessed only through Zones 5 and 6 and all storm water
from the project drains into Altamira Canyon.Eight of the subject
properties drain or abut directly to the canyon.The canyon is also the
source of ground water recharge and of runoff in to the ocean.It is
reasonably foreseeable that some impacts to Zone 2 will have bearing on Zone
5 and potentially Zone 6.Therefore the effects on these Zones should be
considered.
Description of Project
The project description improperly incorporates project design criteria,
such as minimum and maximum square footage,building height,lot coverage,
setbacks,and grading.To the extent these criteria are considered project
objectives,the Initial Study improperly gives the City the ability to
reject feasible mitigation measures that set lower square footage,building
height,lot coverage,setback,and grading requirements.The EIR must make
clear that these are the very criteria for which feasible mitigation
measures will require revision.
In addition,the description of the project itself is still in question.
The revision allowing an exception to the landslide moratorium for the
construction of residential buildings with less than 1000 CY grading was
part of an emergency ordinance increasing the grading from 50 CY to 1000 CY.
The 50 CY was mitigation from the Mitigated Negative Declaration passed by
the City due to the sensitive geology in the area.This amount was greatly
increased to 1000 CY (a 2000%increase)without any study or justification.
Further,the Initial Study includes the potential impacts from the "16 Monks
lots plus 31 additional lots"in order "to provide a conservative analysis"
(page 9).However,the Initial Study also indicates that 7 Monks Plaintiffs
lots have obtained Planning entitlements and the remaining 9 Monks
Plaintiffs lots are in the process of obtaining such entitlements.Further
study must explain how mitigation measures developed and approved in the EIR
will be applied to projects that have already received their entitlements or
have even been constructed.For example,if lower square footage or height
maximums are adopted,will already-constructed homes be required to be
demolished and reconstructed to applicable standards,as the law requires?
will already-approved plans be required to be modified and resubmitted,as
the law requires?If so,why is the City granting entitlements to the Monks
Plaintiffs'lots?If not,why are the Monks Plaintiffs'lots included in
this analysis,and wouldn't their inclusion make this analysis a sham?
Finally,the Project Description incorporates the Monks Plaintiffs'lots but
makes no mention of the current CEQA challenge that has been brought against
the Monks Plaintiffs and the City,and that the Monks Plaintiffs'
applications for planning entitlements have been submitted and processed
entirely at their own risk.
Future Development Potential
The statement that it is assumed that development would occur over at least
a period of 10 years is unsubstantiated and speculative.Truthfully,it is
unknown.The reality is that of 16 lots already allowed to begin the
process,nearly half have already taken significant steps and all have at
least started the process.It is also assumed that they would proceed in a
manner consistent with the private architectural standards of the PBCA.The
conclusion reached in the Initial Study is "Therefore,the future
development assumptions for Zone 2 include the following:"Here the document
proceeds to list items that have not or cannot be met or be consistent with
the above assumption.The Community standards require side or interior set
backs to be significantly greater than the ~t declared here by the City.
Additionally,the 1000 CY of grading is subject to litigation and the
community does not allow ANY import or export of dirt for construction.
This document seeks to circumvent community standards in favor of an
unsupported and arbitrary standard.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Aesthetics
As a general point,the Initial Study should make factual statements
supported by evidence and should not pre-judge the significance of impacts.
All points have potentially significant impact and should be studied further
in an EIR.Statements such as "Adding 47 residences to the project area
would ..incrementally alter the visual character of the site"prejudice the
reader.As there are only 64 residences in the project area currently,
adding 47 more is certainly more than an "incremental"increase!It would
be better stated that it would alter the existing visual character of the
site by a factor of nearly 75%.Also given the fact that the Plumtree
property is indistinguishable from the subject property,the impacts of an
additional approximately 20 homes,maybe more,should be considered.
Air Quality
All points have potentially significant impact and should be studied further
in an EIR.
Biological Resources
All points have potentially significant impact and should be studied further
in an EIR.There are some incorrect assumptions in this section that are of
significance,however,and should be addressed.It is true that,as the
Initial Study states at page 15,some of the subject properties contain
sensitive plants and animals.But the Initial Study incorrectly states,
"Some lots in the northern end of the project area.abut the City's [NCCP
Property]."(Page 15)However,only one of the lots on upper Cinnamon Lane
and a fraction of a second lot abut the NCCP Preserve area.Many more
actually abut the Plumtree property,which then abuts the NCCP Preserve area
to the north.This is again an example of how the Plumtree property is
intimately associated with and even mistaken by the Initial Study for these
lots in Zone 2.It is further evidence that they should be considered
together in the study of their cumulative impacts,as these impacts would be
inseparable.
A number of these properties include Altamira Canyon as part of their legal
description.The City has established the Natural Overlay Control District
to "Enhance watershed management,control storm drainage and erosion,and
control water quality of both urban runoff and natural bodies within the
City."As vast amounts of water enter the storm water system in this area
and the amount is proposed to increase substantially,this will certainly
need to be studied further in an EIR.The Horan Settlement mitigation
measures which improve the drainage in Altamira Canyon have yet to be
implemented.
Cultural Resources
Points b),c)and d)have potentially significant impact and should be
studied further in an EIR.At a minimum,a paleontologist should be
employed during grading in this area for each project.
Geology and Soils
Points a)ii),a)iv),b),c),d)and e)have potentially significant
impact and should be studied further in an EIR.The remaining points may
have some impact.Point e)is of concern because the soils above in the
Plumtree property currently do not have sewer hookups and there really is no
other way for water to leave that property than for it to either come down
Altamira Canyon and back in to the landslide or the open ocean or to come
down through the subject property,on to the streets,into Altamira Canyon
and back in to the landslide or the open ocean.The sewer system currently
does not function properly and is showing signs of obsolescence and
disrepair,and will be further impacted by further development.A holding
tank system is a completely inadequate and impractical alternative.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
All points have potentially significant impact and should be studied further
in an EIR.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Point c)is of concern and should be further studied in an EIR because the
assumption made in the document is that ".due to the dispersed locations of
the subject lots and the opportunity for infiltration of runoff from the
initial flows as part of a rain event,the incremental increase in
impervious surfaces would not be expected to result in significant
concentrations of hazardous substances near the nursery school or else
where."The "incremental increase"here is substantial.Homes in the area
average 2500 SF currently and there are 64 of them.The new homes are
permitted to be 4000 SF and many of the proposed homes approach that size
and there will be 47 of them.You can do the math,too,but adding that
amount of impervious surface area pretty much doubles the amount in the area
currently from homes and related hardscape.That is actually a huge
increase and is even greater when the roads are expanded and the Plumtree
property is built out.The development of more homes and road surfaces is a
reasonably foreseeable event and should be studied in this EIR.
Additionally,we are seeing that the new homes are being required to hold
some water back in a holding tank only to later release it on to the roads.
Infiltration of runoff is not being allowed to happen yet here it is being
used as mitigation for increasing the impervious surfaces.You can't have
it both ways.Regardless of when the water is released from the holding
tanks,it and any toxins in it still go into the Canyon eventually and
either back in to the landslide or in to the ocean by the nursery school.
Point g)is perhaps of greatest concern and should be studied in an EIR.
Evacuation routes to and from the area traverse unstable lands in Zones 5
and 6.These roads have already been overwhelmed in emergency evacuation
situations and emergency response is already impaired and they are in active
landslide areas.
Hydrology and Water Quality
All points except j)have potentially significant impact and should be
studied further in an EIR.
Any study of impacts from increased surface runoff includes areas outside of
Zone 2 because that is where the runoff water ends up.History has shown a
correlation between groundwater levels in Zone 5 and its decrease in
stability.History has also shown that removing this water,via dewatering
wells,dramatically slowed the movement in Zone 5.It is fact that the vast
majority of surface runoff in the western portion of the community
ultimately ends up in Altamira Canyon,with a potential to increase
groundwater levels and to befoul the shore at Abalone Cove.This
potentially devastating impact must be thoroughly analyzed and mitigated.
Land Use and Planning
Point c)does conflict with the NCCP and should be marked as significant
here and further studied in an EIR.
Noise
Points a)-d)have potentially significant impact and should be studied
further in an EIR.
Population and Housing
Point a)does have
studied in an EIR.
respect to zone 2,
number of homes.
Public Services
potentially significant impact and should be further
The impacts will be very significant locally.With
the proposed project represents a 73%increase in the
Points a)i)and ii)are of concern and should be further studied in an EIR.
Especially with respect to fire safety.The document states,".the project
area's close proximity to Fire Station #53 would ensure an adequate response
time by the Fire Department in emergency situations.II However in reality
this was not the case when,almost exactly 1 year ago,a house at Peppertree
and Kumquat burned to the ground and there was a very inadequate response to
the fire.The fire hydrants in the community are not up to today's
standards.In this incident,the fire department had trouble finding the
hydrant in front of this house,and when they finally found it,there was a
problem with their ability to connect to the hydrant due to it's older
design/smaller diameter.Also,the lack of adequate water pressure could be
an issue.It is known that a recent remodel/improvement project on Thyme
Place was scaled back by the city after it was discovered that the local
water pressure was inadequate to support the original size of this remodel.
There is no water supply or fire hydrant availability on upper cinnamon yet
there are a number of properties in this project located on that street.
The most recent fires in the area have been attributed to Edison power
lines.There are power lines running up Altamira Canyon.There is a gas
main that crosses the eroding canyon under these power lines through two
subject lots on Cinnamon and Vanderlip and there is not a fire hydrant or
water service available on Upper Cinnamon.The roads to this project are
inadequate to support large fire fighting equipment.The fire situation at
the very least warrants some study.
Transportation and Traffic
All points except c)have potentially significant impact and should be
studied further in an EIR.
Utilities and Service Systems
All points except f)and g)have potentially significant impact and should
be studied further in an EIR.
Point c)is of special concern because here,again,the increase in
impervious surfaces is being credited with reducing groundwater recharge,
yet holding tanks are also being required to hold water so it does not go
back in to the ground (yet it actually does go back there after it is dumped
back on the streets).This just does not seem to add up.You can't have
your cake and eat it,too.Truthfully,the rain that falls on the
vegetated,undisturbed properties soaks in a few inches,doesn't run off,
and eventually evaporates.The vast majority of the run off comes from
8
impervious surfaces and denuded vacant land,such as horse corrals.
Point d)may mean that the service provider has adequate water to supply the
area,but the delivery of it is potentially inadequate.As mentioned above,
some remodel projects have been scaled back due to lack of water service or
pressure,not lack of water itself.The development of the Plumtree
property will require adequate water delivery as well.The water supply
will have to come up from this area,one would assume.It is better to
study it now and know,than to be inadequately prepared in the future.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
All points have potentially significant impact and should be studied further
in an EIR.
Thanks for your attention and the opportunity to comment.
Cassie Jones
Lewis Enstedt
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:Tom Odom and Joel Rojas
FROM:Steve Wolowicz
CC:Carolyn Lehr and Ray Holland
DATE:January 29,2011
SUBJECT:CC meeting 2-1-11 item #132011 PV Marathon
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Tom and Joel,
Please help with a few questions on this topic.
Thanks,
Steve
1.It has been a little over four months since their original letter of September
15,2010.What caused the great delay in getting this to us now with a
relatively short period of time until the actual event?The delay has been
the lack of logistical and detailed event information from the event
organizers for staff's review.In response to their September letter,
City staff immediately met with the event organizers and notified
them of the information needed and permits they would have to
apply for so the event could proceed.Since that time,City staff has
met with the applicant a number of times,each time reiterating the
need to submit the necessary information.Because critical
information had not been submitted and the event is only 4 months
away,Staff became concerned that there would not be enough time
to process the application request through the City's normal
process.As such,Staff brought this item to the City Council's
attention.As noted in correspondence to the applicant on January
27,2011,we still do not have the following information:
•Detailed,thorough plans and description of all aspects of the
event (i.e.-use of shuttle buses,signage,water stations,number
of participants,sanitation,littler control,etc.);
•Site plan (all tents,parking and activities)for Terranea Resort
and City-owned Fisherman's Access;
•Formal Parking Site Parking Plan,parking control plan and
property owner authorization for all parking lots or areas where
parking for the event is proposed to be located;
•Final Traffic Control/Management Plan,stamped and sealed by a
licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer,that addresses flagging
operations,event route,and lane closure information of all stages
of the event;
/5""'"
•Shuttle Plan and schedule for transporting people to and from
Terranea Resort to parking areas designated for the event;
•Staging Plan,along with the schedule of activities and events
leading up to and on event day;
•Public Information Plan;
•Verification of S019(c)(3)status with the state;
•Hold Harmless agreement letter and agreement with the City;
• A minimum of $3,000,000 single limit liability insurance policy;
and Kiwanis certificate of insurance naming the City as
additionally insured.
At a minimum,this information is critical for staff to determine what
conditions of approval may be recommended to mitigate the impacts to
approximately 16,000 residents along the marathon route.
2.The marathon has been in RPV for several decades.What type of fees
had our city charged in the past?Non-profits have been exempt from
road permit fees in the past.The City Council adopted Resolution
2010-77 updating the master schedule of fees and charges for City
Services that included cost recovery for all road events held in the
City.Staff informed Kiwanis that a fee would be charged for the
marathon but that the fee was undetermined due to lack of
information submitted by the applicant.The costs for Sheriff
services the day of the event has always been paid by the applicant
and the amount last year was $6,SOO.
3.Aside from the staging location it appears the course through RPV is
relatively the same as last year.Is that correct?When was the last time
that a public hearing was held to discuss the route and impact to
residents?In past years,the marathon,%marathon and SK started
and ended at Point Fermin Park in San Pedro.The SK was entirely in
San Pedro.The %Marathon course entered the City at PVDS/2S th
Street,turned around at Wayfarer's Chapel and proceeded back to
San Pedro on PVDS.The full marathon course (about 300 runners)
proceeded past Wayfarers Chapel on PVDS and PVDW into PVE and
back to San Pedro.The organizers now want to start and end the SK
(approximately SOO runners),%Marathon (approximately 1,800
runners)and full Marathon (approximately 300 runners)at Terranea
in RPV.The %Marathon course would be limited to PVDS and PVDW
with a short segment traversing through the Ocean front Estates
neighborhood and a portion in Palos Verdes Estates.The Marathon
route consists of running the same %Marathon loop twice.As a
result,the impacts of the 3 event races are now "compressed"within
RPV in an area not previously impacted as such in the past.The
"compression"will result in a higher concentration of runners along
PVDS and PVDW for longer periods of time than in the past.This will
C:IDocumenls and SettingslclehrlLocal SettingslTemporary Inl 01/31/11 5:2E
likely cause significant ingress/egress inconvenience to about 1,600
households in the surrounding neighborhoods,in addition to the
Golden Cove Shopping Center and the nearby public facilities (PVIC,
public coastal trails).Given that the average household has
approximately 2.5 people with at least 2 automobiles this could
potentially has an impact of up to 4,000+vehicles when factoring in
weekend visitors,average daily traffic and motorist commuting to
either side of the peninsula.
Staff has no knowledge of a public hearing being conducted to
discuss the routes and impacts of previous marathon events.
C:IDocuments and SettingslclehrlLocal SettingslTemporary In 01131/11 5:20
CITVOF
January 27,2011
John Williams
Marathon Chair
Kiwanis Club of Rolling Hills Estates
P.O.Box 2856
Palos Verdes Peninsula,CA 90274
Re:2011 Palos Verdes Marathon
Dear Mr.Williams;
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
OFFICE OFTHE CITY MANAGER
As we discussed today,your organization is proposing to conduct the Palos
Verdes Marathon in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on May 14,2011.Unlike
years past when the route only passed through the City,this year's event would
start and finish within the City's ,boundaries.This significant change in the scope
of the event requires the following three permits:
1.Special Use Permit for the activities at the Terranea Resort not covered by
its Conditional Use Permit;
2.Encroachment Permit for review of the traffic control plan and
encroachment in the pUblic right-of-way;and,
3.Roadway Special Event Permit for event planning,additional street
sweeping,and post event clean-up.
Although you have submitted preliminary information,to date the City has not
received formal applications or fee payments for any of the requireq permits
listed above.Unfortunately,as we have not yet received these critical items,
there is no longer sufficient time to conduct the normal application,public notice
and appeal process,prior to the event date of May 14th •
Request for Submission by January 31.2011
Given the current circumstances,staff has scheduled this item to be considered
by the City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting on February 1st to
determine whether to direct staff to implement an abbreviated application
process in order to allow the event to take place on May 14th.In anticipation of
the City Council's discussion,we are requesting that you submit the following
critical items by Monday,January 31 st:
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD,/RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391 /(310)544-5205/FAX (310)544-5291
E"MAIL:CLEHR@RPV,COM /WWW.PALOSVERDEs.cOM/RPV
~m7Jq'"13
John Williams
January 27,2011
Page 2 of4
~Completed Special Use Permit application signed by Terranea Resort
(property owner);and,
~An initial cash deposit of $15,000 for City fees associated with the
applications.
In addition,it would be extremely helpful to the City·if the following information
could be submitted to the City by January 31 5
\so that the City Council and Staff
can be better prepared to discuss this matter on February 1st;
~Detailed,thorough plans and description of all aspects of the event (e.g.
use of shuttle buses,sign age,water stations,number of participants,turn
around points,etc.);
};>Site Plan (all tents,parking and activities)for Terranea Resort and City-
owned Fisherman's Access;
~Formal Parking Site Plan,parking control plan,and property owner
authorization for all parking lots or areas where parking for the event is
proposed to be located;
~Final Traffic Control/Management Plan,stamped and sealed by a licensed
Civil or Traffic Engineer,that addresses flagging operations,event route,
and lane closure information for all stages of the event;
~Shuttle Plan and schedule for shuttling people to and from Terranea
Resort to the parking areas designated for the event;
~Staging Plan,along with the schedule of activities and events leading up
to and on event day;
~Public Information Plan;
~Verification of 501 (c)(3) status with the state;
~Kiwanis'Hold Harmless agreement letter and agreement with the City;
~A minimum of $3,000,000 single limit liability insurance policy;and
~Kiwanis'certificate of insurance naming the City as an additionally
insured.
More information may be requested as a result of reviewing the documents noted
above.Submittal of the requested information does not necessarily mean that
the application can be deemed complete.
Request for Submission of Additional Information after January 31.2011
The following items do not need to be submitted by January 31 st,but will be
required prior to the event.City Staff will coordinate with your organization for
delivery dates of the follOWing:
~The Sheriff's approval of the marathon course and road closures;
~Official course map and brochure;
John Williams
January 27,2011
Page 3 of4
:>Letter from the City of Palos Verdes Estates indicating approval of the
event;
:>Sufficient precautions to prevent participant parking on public streets -or
any location other than designated lots;
:>Signs (approximately 20"X 34")to be placed on PVDW/PVDS at all
intersecting streets 1Y2 weeks prior to marathon notifying residents and
business owners of the upcoming event;and,
:>Electronic signage boards along the event roadway route forewarning
residents/drivers of upcoming event/date/impacts.
It's my understanding that the information listed above has been previously
communicated by City Staff either orally or via email.
Reguest to Fund Trust Deposit Account
In accordance with the City's accounting practices,as well as Resolution 2010-
7?,the City requests that you submit an initial cash deposit of $15,000 for City
fees associated with your application.This estimate is based on 118 hours of
fully-burdened staff time,including a Senior Engineer,an Administrative Analyst,
the Maintenance Superintendant,Maintenance Workers,and part-time
Recreation Staff.The City has already invested more than 80 hours of Staff time
for preliminary discussions and ·planning that will not be charged to this proposed
event.The cash deposit request also includes the estimated costs of additional
street sweeping,preparation of City parking lots for event use,and trash pick-up.
The cash deposit request does not include any fees required by the Sheriff to
provide traffic control,which your organization would pay directly to the Sheriff.
The request also does not include any City costs that may arise from related
uninsured property damage or problem resolution.Additionally,the City Council
may provide direction on February 1st that would require your organization to pay
additional City costs that have not been contemplated in this initial request (e.g.
enhanced public noticing).Therefore,your organization may become
responsible for additional City costs that exceed this initial request.
The City's trust deposit policy is as follows:1)trust deposit accounts shall be
replenished within 10 days of receipt of notice from the City that additional funds
are needed,and 2)an applicant shall deposit and replenish said funds in the
amounts requested by the City,based upon an estimate by City Staff of the cost
of the services.If the applicant fails to timely establish or replenish a trust
deposit,the City shall suspend all processing of the application until such time as
the applicant remits the required additional funds.These trust deposit provisions
will be included as a condition of approval.
Please direct your questions to Tom Odom at tomo@rpv.com or (310)544-5335,
and he will coordinate with the appropriate Staff member to respond.
John Williams
January 27,2011
Page 4 of4
Sincerely,
~c5\JA-;
Carolyn Lehr
City Manager
Cc:Carol Lynch,Richards,Watson &Gershon,City Attorney
Joel Rojas,Community Development Director
Tom Odom,Deputy Director of Public Works/Interim Director of
Recreation
Dennis McLean,Director of Finance and Information Technology
Lomita Sheriff's Station
Terranea Resort