20110315 Late CorrespondenceTorrance
Municipal
Airport
_BlueRoute
•......................GoldRoute
~Gleen Route
--Gleen Eastview
~Silver Route
--WhiteFWle
c;&&&&.<OrangeRoue
--Route22S
___Roule226
COUNCtvtAJ
Wl;>I.-DCA-tc.~
"hA~~~
€14rGa tJj-
~h$J'"
,'1M /~a/I
From:bjhilde@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday,March 15,2011 5:24 PM
To:nicolej@rpv.com;CC@rpv.com;Clehr@rpv.com
Subject:Item 7 on tonight's agenda
Hi Nicole,
I looked at the staff report for item 7 and can't believe what has happened to traffic calming.Let me
expound:
1)For traffic calming purposes,Ambergate Dr.CANNOT be considered a residential neighborhood
because it only has homes on one side of street.(See VC Section?????)
2)"Hearsay"accident reports CANNOT be used as criteria.There must be a standard,and the best thing
yet is a Sheriff's report,however infrequent they are written.
3)Speed studies were done on 1 Sept,a NON-school day.Even so the 85th percentile speed of 35 MPH
is reasonable on a street such as Ambergate with homes (and driveways)only on one side,and lengthy
view corridors.
4)Traffic counts were taken before school was in session (2 Sept)and 3 weeks later.Not pertinent in this
case but must be avoided in any traffic studies.Same day of week and time is important and after school
is in session.
5)CVC 21800(b)says "driver of a vehicle on a terminating street (e.g.,E/B on Brookford)SHALL yield to
ALL vehicles on the intersecting continuing street."VC DOES NOT reqiure a control device at such an
intersection since the ROW is defined for you by the VC section.
6)If RPV is going to the expense of signage,it should be yellow advisory signs warning of a 3-way
intersection ahead and placed on Ambergate approaches to Brookford.Forget STOP signs which areoo-t
fQLGQntI9JHngJ~p-~eJ;j_but to assign right-of way ONLY.
7)About 10 years ago the citizens of Bloomwood near Mt.Hood (Eastview)made a similar appeal for a
3-way STOP at that intersection.After many sessions at which they pleaded for that change,the TC.
relented and the signs were put in place.Not more than 3 months went by and they were back at the TC
asking for the signs TO BE REMOVED.They had pads of data documenting how many vehicles sped
right through the STOP signs,and they thought that the intersection was now very dangerous.City
should be aiming to make streets LESS dangerous
Barry Hildebrand,PE
3560 Vigilance Dr.,RPV
310-377-0051
3/15/2011
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MARCH 15,2011
ADDITIONAL LATE CORRESPONDENCE
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
6
Respectfully submitted,
~
Description of Material
Answers to questions posed by Councilman Wolowicz
W:\AGENDA \2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\2011 0315 additional -additions revisions to agenda.doc
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:Ray Holland and Ron Dragoo
FROM:Steve Wolowicz
CC:Carolyn Lehr
DATE:March 15,2011
SUBJECT:CC meeting -3/15/11 item #6 -increase maintenance contract
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Ray and Ron,
Is this stated correctly,the increase is $605,830,or is this an increase to that amount?If
it is the actual increase,than that is 109%of the original contract.While the work on
25th Street was under emergency circumstances,given the magnitude of the amount,I
think we need to see the composition of this increase at least by incident and date.If for
no other reason this focuses attention on the urgency status of the entire Tarapaca
Canyon problem.
Thanks,
Steve
Public Works response:
The requested increase to the contract amount is $605,830.The budgeted work items
either have been completed or are underway and need to be completed by the end of
the fiscal year,are shown below.
Bd tdf d fllu1geeunsareasoows:
Work Item Budgeted Funds
Two Man Maintenance Crew with a truck (ongoing weekly $159,600
maintenance as needed)
Roadway maintenance work (right of way roadway maintenance is $257,400
performed on an ongoing basis as needed)
Palos Verdes Drive South Landslide Roadway maintenance $560,000
(ongoing maintenance as needed)
B.urma Road Maintenance (completed November 2010)$25,000
Emergency 25m Street Storm Cleanup (October &December 201O)$40,000
EI Tesoro Place Emergency Roadway Root Removal (Roadway $110,000
safety and storm drainaQe related work completed January 2011 )
Miscellaneous Maintenance projects $13,500
Total $1,165,500
Staff is seeking authorization to increase the contract limit with the City's Maintenance
contractor so that the budgeted work that is needed throughout the City can be
addressed.
Following a brief telephone conversation between Council member Wolowicz and Ron
Dragoo,Public Works has the following to add:
It is important to note that staff believes the existing approved budget is adequate to
perform the remaining roadway maintenance work that has been identified this fiscal
year.
The proposals that were submitted in 2009 for the Roadway Maintenance Contract to
the City were done in accordance with the identified quantities contained on the bid
sheets (see attached bid sheets).
The bids submitted were used to establish the low bidder whose total bid was based on
the quantities included on the bid sheets.
The actual quantities change from year to year based on the type of work that needs to
be done each year.Accordingly,the expenditure limit of the contract with Hardy and
Harper,Inc.needs to be adjusted to align with the budget.
Staff is requesting an increase of $605,830 to the contract for Roadway Maintenance
with Hardy and Harper,Inc.to align the contract authority with the adopted budget.
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
r
r
r
r
r
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
BID SHEET
NAME OF COMPANY:Hardy &Harper I Inc.
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
In compliance with the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids.the undersigned hereby 8 b'TeeS 10 enter into a contraci
to furnish all labor,materials,equipment and supplies for the project identified as Roadwa)'Maintenance
for Fiscal Years 2009 -2010 through 2013 -2014 in accordance with the specifications and plans in the
Contract Documents which are on file in the office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes to the satisfaction and under the direction oCthe Director of Public Works at the following
prices:
Roadway Maintenance for Fiscal Years 2009 -2010 through 2013 -2014
Bid Sheet Type One Work -Roadway Maintenance Crew
ITEM ESTIMATE PRICE EXTENDED
NO.DESCRIPTION PUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT
1.Roadway Maintenance 950 Hours 1~<j'"1s-1 ,~OO ...
Crew
Subtotal Roadway
tS""'l,,oP -Maintenance Crew
P-3
NO.DESCRIPTION OUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
2-1 Curb Painting per location ( I -
100 If)600 LF •S'1>300-
2·2 Curb Painting per location
(101 -500 If)600 LF .so ;300-
2-3 Remove and Replace concrete LFCurbandgutterperlocation250 t;"O-rz...~o-(1-50 If)
2-4 Remove and Replace 4"SFconcreteSidewalk200 (1,.....z,'foo-per location 9 (1-64 SF)
2-5 Remove and Replace 4"SFconcreteSidewalk1000
per location tt-"',00 0-
(65 -256 SF)
2-6 4"Asphalt remove and
reconstruct 3000 SF ~-per location 2-t.{,OOO-
(J -100 SF)
Per additional inch in depth of 1000 SF
asphalt removal and ~-",,000 -
replacement (I -100 SF)
Additional per SF to include 1000 SF
root removal .'2-0 "2-00-
2-7 4tt Asphalt remOve and
reconstruct 6000 SF ~...per location 3~,oOO-
(101-500 SF)
Per additional inch in depth of 2000 SF
asphalt removal and 2-...tf,000-replacement (101 -500 SF)
Additional per SF to include 2000 SF tfoo-root removal .-z..o
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
l
r
r
r
r
r
ITEM
Bid Sheet Type Two Items of Work
ESTIMATE EXTENDED
tf-32.-,000-
L.--I (p ,OOC>-
Ma~.04 2009 08:38AM P3/5
_._-+----1------1
8000 SF
FAX NO.:5445292
ITEM ESTIMATE UNIT nXTTINDED
~.li9:..:...--,-:D:::..:E=S::..:'C:.::.'R1=1:...:)1:.::.'lO=.:N:..:.-...."...~~Q~O:.:.A=-N:..:.T.:.:1T:..:y~~~rr ._..PRICE AMOUN/f
2-8 4"Asphalt remove and reconstruct
per location 8000 SF i L "2-
(501 _1000 SF).,.~D ..J~/OOO-
~';;"::"''''''':''::'=''::'''':::::',.J--+_--:--_----1_..',."""..-1---.
Per additional inch in depth of 3000 SF
asphalt removal and replacement
(501 ...1000 SF)fJ-:=...::...:...:-:-=-..::..::.::....::::..::-':-------:__---+'""""7"--:-----'._..-----l---.-.
Additional per SF to include root 3000 SF
1--__r.-r~~!lova1
2,9 4"Asphalt remove and reconstruct
per locatic)J)
(1001 -2000 S.F)
FRor1 :RPV
I
I
I
I
\
I
i,
j
I
(Q,(lOO -z-
SF
.U><000 -..'".,..~.......,..,"._..
SF
3-4b"j 000-
...
SIt
3000
5000
,--.~__~.,_.____.."__~._,._..----+----l----.
Per additional inch in depth of 3000 SF
asphalt removal and replacement
(1001 -2000 SF).
2-15
2-16
2-17
2-16..~.~-""---'-""""
Per additional inch in depth of
asphalt removal and replacement 7.--{O ,O($)O -
..~E.~Y~~QQQ ..§¥.l.......-.---_..._----l----+---i----I-----
Additional per SF to include root 5000 SF
removal •2-0 I J D 00 ...'i:Tr---'i;;staTr;~~t'b~-;:-le'-J'-------+-4-0-0---r--r-.JF---+--f.SO-+-....:--£.-bo-o'~~
2~12 Full day lane closure for non 12 EA
_.._.~~-~JJllJ..roadway ';00-~t~.~':'_
2-13 Half day lane closure for non.12 EA
1---+...;.r.:.:es:.:.:id::::,:e~11t::.:'ia::.:.l...:.;ro::.:::a:::.;:;dw~'.;;;.av'----:---:----.-..''''".._.__300 -.3,(Poo ~..
2-14 Full day flagging operations for 8 EA
non residential roadway If "foo-l (,2-GO-
Half day flagging operations for 8 EA
non residential roadway ...'"....=roO'"S'"J (POO-
Asphalt Cra~k T..!.~l,~~!}L,,__1000 ...-.."jji"""'-"r I .~::.:e,--,s;]?o -::.._
Handicap Access R.a!~____..-.5 EA_I.c::"DO.'"'j,..~..f:>.12.::-
Changeable Message Sign ...~......EA..1....3.~-..__l,4l>O-
Additiona.l per SF to inch-Ide root
removal
1-2-.1-0-14"Asphalt ;c;:~vc";n~rr~constrUct"15000"
per location
(above 2000 SF )
L--_--,.-,--•._....._'...•..,-......------1
Subtotal Type Two Work z..~3,~OO-
...-----_.~-,._-_.._--_--I ....._-----'
P-5A
NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT ~--~::=t~::'::::::""'~J_.......
3-1 Laborer 200 Hours is"'"'''.01 -,~........~-.....---...~..........\.,'._.__.......
3-2 Backhoe with operator 100 Hours
'._..",,;,~~~....._.60.,~..
.................'.......H ...
3-3 Roller with operator 40 I-lours
3-4 Skip loader with operator 200 HOnTS If 0_",:.?~?,Ann-'-._....;.
3-5 Lab~.~!yitb Dump Truck 160 Hours Loo.~_.".,..U.(J..t~eoo---;._....-..
3-6 .._~~~£~_~~~_9r~~}t~Kgf~__200 Hours c.J.o ...._.<!l,.~.()O-__r",__
3-7 }!~~~~!.wi:tll2P~!.~~or 7S Hours __.-1JO-.2::2-t:::7t\-_._--.-.-
3-8 Bobcat with operator and 50 Hours .
grimIer I!O-CotS-°o-!
I-..~.."..-_...__.-..-"---1--.
3-9 Sawcut Truck with 100 Hours
operator tlO-1(,000 -_......r.·~w'...,,"'--
3-10 Pavil1g machine with 50 Hours
Operator z-c.fo-12.-000-
~.-........,~",............._-,r'-..._-'--3~1l .§..cr~9.~.9p.S:.F.!l-tor 50 Ho~u's r-r;-...'-S-O.=-....•·..........r04··...···_~
3-12 Forman 100 Hours <~~-c;r.~CO-_......--....-,..,
f~t>-I./..~~("""o ~.~3-13 Vacnum Sweoper 2S Hours.._.,.'
3-14 J?iy~l1p Tru~lL ..........._10 Dailv too-I 6e....o ,=_
3-15 Crew Tmck 10 Daily I~-i·,..S-O.Q_'::'-t-----..f-..•..•__........,,,...............
203-16 Compressor with 90lb HO~lrs /0 -hammer -z,.OO -.....-
---~
SUbtotal Type Three Work ,3>",2-"to ..
.......-,.
Bid Sheet Type Three Items of Work
FROM :RPV
I
!
I
I
I
ITEM
FAX NO.:5445292
ESTIMATE
,IJ -6A
Ma~.04 2009 08:38AM P4/5
l)lUCE EXTENDED
MAY.5.2009 2:18PM 714-444-2801 NO,2362 P.1
--~............
Subtotal T e One Work
Subtotal T e Two Work
Subtotal T )e Tlm~e Work
Total Base Bid Amount
Summary of Work
• I
Total Base Bid Amount in Words:
•
Additive Bid Item
Providing funds are available at the tbne of award of this contract,the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes may eboose to Ildd to the recomnt~ndati.onfor award the following bid item.
ITEM ESTJMATE UNO'EXTENDED
NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY TJNlT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Add Dead Animal Removal and Disposal 34 EA ICfO ej?bO(Regularly Scheduled WQ;rk Day)
2 Add Dead Animal Removal and Disposal 86 BA ICIO {24ft(Special Request,Non-regularly
Scheduled Work Day)
Additive Bid Total [toEd?
,I
Adcli.".Bid Total for the Additive Items in Woro.,II
5LX[ft1JTWtMfIJt1bt1f t!:()lJ!)afD [)C£fifi5
P·7
..-J
FROM :RPV
!
FAX NO.:5445292 Ma~.04 2009 08:38AM P5/5
NOTF::''('he estimated quantities Usted in the Proposal Bid Slleets are approximate and nre
to be used only as a comparison of bids.Payment for quantities will be made from field
nleasurements.If the actual quantities show either and increase of decrease form the
quantities givcn in the Proposal Bid Sheets,the Contract Unit Ptices will prevail.Increases
or decreases in quantities shall not be subject to Section 3..2 oft})e Standard Specifications.
Full compensation wJll be paid at the contract price for tJ1Q actual work completed,and uo
additiollal compensations will he allowed therefore.Payment will not be made for
materials wasted or disposed of in a manner not called for under the Contract;this
in~ludes rejected material not unloaded from veJlicles and material rejected after it has
been placed.No compensation will be aUo,ved for di9posing of riejected or excess material.
The City retierve.~the right to reject all bids and to increase or decrease the amount of any
quantity shown on the Proposal Bid Sheet~,In case of a variation between the unit price
ttrid the totals shown by the bidder,the unit price will be consid4red to be the correct bid.
The remainder of this page has intentionally beeln left blank
P-7A
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MARCH 15,2011
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
6
7
9
11
12
Respectfully submitted,
Description of Material
Answers to questions posed by Councilman Wolowicz
Email from Ken Delong
Answers to questions posed by Councilman Wolowicz
Email from Jim Mills (Attachment mistakenly left out of staff
report)
Email from Bob Nelson
---
W:\AGENDA \2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\2011 0315 additions revisions to agenda.doc
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:Ray Holland and Ron Dragoo
FROM:Steve Wolowicz
CC:Carolyn Lehr
DATE:March 15,2011
SUBJECT:CC meeting -3/15/11 item #6 -increase maintenance contract
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Ray and Ron,
Is this stated correctly,the increase is $605,830,or is this an increase to that amount?If
it is the actual increase,than that is 109%of the original contract.While the work on
25th Street was under emergency circumstances,given the magnitude of the amount,I
think we need to see the composition of this increase at least by incident and date.If for
no other reason this focuses attention on the urgency status of the entire Tarapaca
Canyon problem.
Thanks,
Steve
Public Works response:
The requested increase to the contract amount is $605,830.The budgeted work items
either have been completed or are underway and need to be completed by the end of
the fiscal year,are shown below.
Bd tdf d fllu1geeunsareas0ows:
Work Item Budgeted Funds
Two Man Maintenance Crew with a truck (ongoing weekly $159,600
maintenance as needed)
Roadway maintenance work (right of way roadway maintenance is $257,400
performed on an ongoing basis as needed)
Palos Verdes Drive South Landslide Roadway maintenance $560,000
(ongoing maintenance as needed)
Burma Road Maintenance (completed November 2010)$25,000
Emergency 25tn Street Storm Cleanup (October &December 2010)$40,000
EI Tesoro Place Emergency Roadway Root Removal (Roadway $110,000
safety and storm drainage related work completed January 2011)
Miscellaneous Maintenance projects $13,500
Total $1,165,500
Staff is seeking authorization to increase the contract limit with the City's Maintenance
contractor so that the budgeted work that is needed throughout the City can be
addressed.
/ofl
March 14,2011
Concerning the proposal to place a 4-way stop sign at the intersection of Ambergate Dr.
&Brookford which is item #7 on the March 15th RPV Council agenda.
*The first error in the proposal is that this is not a 4-way intersection.Brookford is a one-
block street ending with one end at Ambergate which is a 3-way (T intersection).
It appears that the Traffic Commission got it right with its first decision to deny the
request for stop signs on Ambergate where it intersects with Brookford.A brief summary
is that Staff &Traffic Commission did not find any cause to place two stop signs at that
location.The traffic usage data reports that at the 86th percentile vehicle speed did not
exceed 36 MPH.Is it not a violation of current RPV Traffic Commission practices to
approve stop signs as proposed on Ambergate?
The report states in the 3rd &4th paragraphs under "Discussion"that photos &
insurance documents were subsequently submitted as proof of past accidents that
caused staff &the Traffic Commission to change the earlier decision.That evidence
seems questionable as where were the records found?Who had made a log of
accidents over the past several years with the names and addresses of those involved in
vehicle accidents at Ambergate &Brookford?Again how were the participants identified
and records located?
Did not find any copies of supposed proof of previous accidents attached to report which
is troubling when veracity cannot be confirmed.I urge the Traffic Commission as well as
the Council to examine the Traffic Calming Petition as there seems to be a lot of
similarity in signatures on the petition.
I reside in that area and use the Ambergate /Brookford intersection virtually every day
and I have not observed accidents there.Yes there are a few drivers who exceed the
speed limit which,in my opinion,are opportunities for Deputy Knox whom I seldom see
in the Ambergate /Brookford area as he is most observed on the upper portion of
Monero.
Furthermore there are likely greater unintended consequences of more serious
accidents being caused by drivers failing to stop at the new stop signs and drivers
pulling into Ambergate from Brookford believing that Ambergate traffic would be stopping
at the Ambergate stop signs.
,of ~
7
One might conclude that if an Ambergate resident had made notice there might be
substance to the claim but it was not an Ambergate resident but a person living on
Brookford about 1/2 way between Ambergate &Golden Meadow.
Whatever traffic conditions on Ambergate that may exist have existed for at least ten
years or more and does not need to be a victim of unintended consequences.
This item should be removed from the March 15th agenda and remanded to the Traffic
Commission "to get it right."
Ken Delong
6940 Maycroft Dr.
ken.delong@verizon.net
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
Joel Rojas,Eduardo Schon born,and Carol Lynch
Steve Wolowicz
Carolyn Lehr
March 15,2011
CC meeting 3/15/11 item #9 Amendment City's housing
TO:
FROM:
CC:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
element
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Joel,Eduardo,and Carol,
The Staff Report is fairly clear that theRecommendation is primarily to revise the
Code to be in compliance with State Law.Given the intent and sources of
proposed language and other than identifying a geographical area it appears that
there are few discretionary alternatives available to the City.However,I am
concerned that we do not inadvertently preclude existing residents (either
residential or commercial)from valid appeals should they suffer damage (either
economic or the enjoyment of their property).
Are there adequate safeguards within the proposed recommendation that allow
existing property owners from presenting viable positions to ensure that their
rights are also considered given a specific situation affecting their respective
property?
Hi Steve,
As with other entitlement applications,the potential reduction of a property's
value would not be an adequate basis for appealing the decision.However,after
the project is built and operating,if there are operational problems then code
enforcement or law enforcement can be contacted to address those situations.
The code amendment adds transitional and supportive housing to the uses and
developments allowed with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)in the multi family
zone.Thus,as with any CUP,any interested party can appeal the Planning
Commission's decision within 15 days.
The same applies to Single Room Occupancy (SRO)developments,which with
the proposed code amendment will allow SROs with a CUP in the Commercial
General zone.Thus,the Planning Commission's decision on the CUP can be
appealed within 15 days.
Regarding Reasonable Accommodations,the proposed process includes an
appeal process.
Page 1 of 2
03/15/11 3:52 PM 9.
Lastly,regarding emergency shelters,the proposed code amendment will allow
such uses without any discretionary application,which is a requirement resulting
from S82.
Sincerely,
-Eduardo
Page 2 of 2
03/15/11 3:52 PM
From:
To:
cc:
Subject:
Start:
End:
Location:
Mills,Jim
dennism@rpv.com:
Turner,Kim;Sullivan,Patrick;
Declined:MAX
Friday,February 25,2011 3:30:00 PM
Friday,February 25,2011 4:00:00 PM
Conference Call
I have been directed to send your letter dated February 24,2011 to the Lead Agency Legal Counsel for
review.At the Special March 7,2011 Policy Steering Committee Meeting Lead Agency Staff will be
available to address any specific concerns the City of Rancho Palos Verdes may have.
/ofl
ATTACHMENT B 11-1
From:Nelsongang@aol.com
Sent:Monday,March 14,2011 8:01 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Floor Atrea Ratio,Mtng 3/14/11;Item 12
Our HOA,Sea Bluff,has had considerable experience with developers,insufficient lot size,our Planning
Commission,a couple of Councils to say nothing of the Coastal Commission vis-a-vis the infamous Nantasket
Residential Development.
Though we seldom side with our Mayors (or Councils)on development,in this case we do side
with Mayor Long on Floor Area Ratio.
We have learned 'Neighborhood Compatibility'actually means the development is a neighborhood unto itself;
totally ignoring what you will see as the neighborhood, legally OK'd by our City Attorney so Nantasket's developer
could proceed (not one neighborhood bome stood in favor of this project so something had to be done to
approve it).
Nantasket will have 26 foot high home facades 10 feet in from a sidewalk that is a named trail!Lot homes are
being advertised as 'approved'when they are not.But this is RPV and developers kinda rule.We have three
homeowners whose views will disappear,but this is RPV and we are only citizens.
So 'Floor Area Ratio'is the best bet we have.And the Planning Commission are all running for your seats so they
need of developer support is obvious.In this case,only Mayor Long has any trustworthiness,respect and listening
skills.We understand,72%to 28%!
Thank you for this opportunity.Good hunting!
Bob Nelson
310-544-4632
3/15/2011 /~.