20130716 Late CorrespondenceJANICE HAHN
44TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA
COMMITTEES:
TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
SMALL BUSINESS
PORTS CAUCUS
FOUNDER AND Co-Cl·IAIR
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WHIP
GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION TASK FORCE
ctrongrrss of tbe Winitdl ~tates
T!)ou%e of l\epresentatibe%
wmta~bington, iIDQC: 20515-0544
The Honorable Jared Blumenfeld
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne St. (OPA-3)
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Administrator Blumenfeld,
July 10, 2013
\f\18SH!tlGLQ1':L0£flCE:
404 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
(202) 225-8220
FAX: (202) 226--7290
Q!SJBJCJ. OfFlcE:
140 W. 6rn SrnEET
SAN Prn1w. CA 90731
(310) 831-1799
FAX: (310) 831--1885
HTIP:llHAHN.HOUSE.GOV
As you are aware, I am deeply coricemed with the safety of members of my community who live,
work, and send their children to school in the shadow of the Rancho LPG Facility in San Pedro. I
greatly appreciated your taking the time to come to my district office last year to hear directly from
community leaders who expressed t~eir continuing concern about the safety of the site.
In March 2013, the EPA issued a "N_otification of Potential Enforcement Action for Violation of
Section l 12(r) (7) of the Clean Air Act" to the Rancho Facility and Rancho was given until April 15,
2013 to respond. I was gratified to see the EPA pursuing the safety concerns of my constituents so
forthrightly, and I want to thank you again for your vigilance.
I understand that the EPA wants to schedule a meeting with Rancho LLP to address their response in
··August. The community is eager to see this matter resolved as quickly as possible, and so I write to
request that the meeting be held this month.
I continue to believe that the relocation of these tanks is the only permanent solution to the threat posed
by the Rancho facility. Until we achieve that, however, I know the community would appreciate a
repo1t as soon as possible about the steps EPA is taking to aggressively confront and correct any and
all possible violations at the facility.
Thank you for attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please call my District Director,
Elise Swanson at (310) 831-1799.
Sincerely,
nice Hahn
ember of Congress
CC: Councilmember Joe Buscaino, Los Angeles City Council
Mayor Susan Brooks, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
of 2
Dial-a-Ride is a Public Safety Issue
1 message
J.J.t.t.p>.>.t I U.J.U.IJ. .5vv51"' AA..IJ.J.11111U1.J.I UJ VI • UJ.-"'ui...J.n..-U-1V-1U, I .J._ '""-1\.A;.,. J.V "' -pt.vw'i ••
I
Jarel Wheaton <jwheat2007@gmail com>
Jarel Wheaton <jwheat2007@gmail.com> Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:21 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Bee: Maryann Rimoin <mrimoin@verizon.net>, Ann Shaw <anndshaw@gmail.com>, Lindley R ddick
<elruddick@cox.net>, Betty Wheaton <bwheat2007@gmail.com>, magla@ix.netcom.com, Kat y
Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com> I
The cost for Dial-a-Ride was addressed in Mayor Brooks' Newsletter earlier this week and it i on
the next City Council agenda (item 4). Thank you for making this item very visible and providi g
the transparency while the City seeks solutions for what appears to be a reduction in the sup ort
for the needs of our older residents. While the oral report and discussion on Tuesday only ha e a
minor impact immediately, the comments in Susan's newsletter sound like an early warning of a
potential longer term funding problem that needs to be addressed.
My primary purpose is to highlight that Dial-a-Ride is much more than merely a fiscal issue. It is a
public safety issue because all residents, both young and old, can become a victim in an auto
accident caused by older drivers who may not be giving up their car keys as early as they should.
Deputy Knox has talked about the dangers of older drivers not recognizing when they give up
driving. An unintended consequence of addressing Dial-a-Ride from a cost perspective can be
encouraging older drivers to continue driving longer than they really should. This places all of us
at risk. I'll bet all of us know examples of older people who have either caused or nearly caused
an accident. I'll also bet that none of us can think of any example where an older resident is
eagerly waiting to qualify for the cheap rides made possible by the Dial-a-Ride subsidy. To the
contrary. Often it takes many friends, relatives, and all too often a close call to convince an elderly
driver to give up the car keys.
The geography of the Peninsula and location to hospitals/doctors presents a real challenge to
some of our older residents. While some may perceive anyone with a 90274 I 90275 to be "rich,"
please don't overlook the fact that some seniors may be very long-term residents who are
"land-rich" (home equity) but still struggle with routine living expenses and medical costs. Any
future consideration of the means testing mentioned in Susan's newsletter should recognize the
difference between readily available cash and home equity.
There is also an important perception issue to consider with modifications to senior services,
especially as we approach another election. Many of our residents may not pay much attention to
the funding sources, subsidies, and our tax base that prevents RPV from providing many of the
services to seniors that are provided by some other local cities. While RPV has always been very
supportive of Peninsula Seniors, some of our senior residents may be puzzled how we can be
expanding Parks & Recreation activities for youth, dog park, and increasing senior staff with a
full-time Parks & Rec Director while we consider cutting services to our senior residents due to
funding.
7/16/13 7:57 Arv
)f 2
-........... -... _ ..... _ ................ ._ ............ ->J......__ .. J ............ .__ ,.,. .... t'Ll•I r ,._..,........._,.,, •t::i...,.._,b_....., • ...,.._,AAJ.I AAA ..... J.I U.l VI • "'"'-1.--'--AA .... -U.JV.JtJ. I VAVV~ Y J.V YY -p"'--'1 ••
RPV has been taking steps to improve services to our senior residents. Last year Susan helped
launch a "PV Cares" series of discussions with the other Peninsula cities to focus on how to cost
effectively provide senior services. I applaud that effort because it leverages the limited funding
we have available to improve senior services. It would be great to hear an update at a City
Council meeting on the status of this on-going effort and when it will be implemented.
Key Point: Dial-a-Ride is a public safety issue because it makes the road safer for all residents,
not just the elderly.
Respectfully submitted,
Jarel Wheaton
7/16/13 7:58 AM
CrrvoF
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JULY 16, 2013
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached ~re revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
D
F
1
3
6
Respectfully submitted,
Description of Material
Email response from Interim Director of Public Works Jones
to Mickey Rodich
Copy of signed Purchase and Sale Agreement and Escrow
Instructions
Email exchanges between: Don Reeves and Director of
Finance/IT Mclean; Mayor Brooks and Interim Director of
Public Works Jones
Email from April Sandell
Email response from Senior Engineer Dragoo to Mayor Pro
Tern Duhovic; Email response from Interim Director of Public
Works Jones to Mickey Rodich
0,4~.&K_
Carla Morreale
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, July 15, 2013**.
W:\AGENDA\2013 Additions Revisions to agendas\20130716 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Les Jones
Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:21 PM
mickeyrodich@gmail.com
Cc:
Subject:
Anthony Misetich; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Carolyn Lehr
FW: A) Ladera Linda Gas Line & B) San Ramon Canyon Change Orders
Dear Mr. Rodich
This is in response to your inquiries related to the repair of the gas line at Ladera Linda School and change orders at San
Ramon:
1. Ladera Linda School ... Indeed, you are correct that this invoice was for the temporary repair of the gas line at
Ladera Linda. As you probably know, there are some temporary uses at the facility and recreation staff is
available at the location. The gas repair was done to provide gas service and thus alleviate the electrical
demand whjch, in my opinion, posed a safety threat to the users and the facility. However, the repair only
sought to address the known conditions of deterioration to the existing gas line. It did not provide a permanent
replacement of the gas line ... an improvement that I would have recommended if this facility was home to a
permanent Montessori School that hosted small children on a regular, ongoing basis.
In addition, a more intensive use such as a Montessori school would also have required the City to address the
inadequate sewer line from the facility and the water service to the facility. I understand that they also suffer
the challenges of age and deterioration. Consequently, while this repair is holding at the present, I would
recommend that the community consider making longer lasting improvements in this facility if, in fact, you wish
to engage it for more intense use.
2. San Ramon Change Orders ... The other two change orders were for roadway striping and the installation of
concrete slurry in the canyon due to differing site conditions. (The striping change was a zero dollar
change and the value of the concrete slurry within the canyon is $22,868.00).
Les Jones
Interim Director of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Telephone: 310-544-5252
Fax: 310-544-5292
Email: lesj@rpv.com
From: Mayor Susan Brooks [mailto:subrooks08@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 12:17 PM
To: Mickey Rodich
Cc: CC; Les Jones
Subject: Re: A) Ladera Linda Gas Line & B) San Ramon canyon Change Orders
Mickey,
I'm requesting of Les Jones that he reply to your email and cc us .. These are Public Works issues. Thanks,
Susan
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> wrote:
1 b.
A) In the Staff report for tonight's meeting I noticed that included in the Consent Calendar under Item D,
Register of Demands, on Page D-4 there is an entry # V 904 from Bob and Marc Plumbing. It describes it as
LL, which I think means Ladera Linda. The expenditure is for $10,690 for the repair of gas lines. It was just a
few years ago that Ladera Linda had a Montessori School as a tenant and at that time the City Council decided
not to renew their lease, because the Staff estimated that it would cost over $100,000 to replace the gas line
leading to the school, and that would not be economical. Would this repair job have solved the problem 2 years
ago so that the City could have retained the Montessori School as a tenant, while receiving around $60,000 in
annual lease payments from them?
B) In the July 2nd Council meeting, Change Order #1 for San Ramon Canyon was discussed. Item #6, page 6-
1 in the Regular Business Section of tonight's meeting describes Change Order #4. What happened to Change
Order #2 and #3? What were they for?
Susan Brooks, Mayor
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
310) 541-2971 home
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Tuesday, July 16, 2013 12:03 PM
cc
A) Ladera Linda Gas Line & B) San Ramon Canyon Change Orders
A) In the Staff report for tonight's meeting I noticed that included in the Consent Calendar under Item D,
Register of Demands, on Page D-4 there is an entry # V 904 from Bob and Marc Plumbing. It describes it as
LL, which I think means Ladera Linda. The expenditure is for $10,690 for the repair of gas lines. It was just a
few years ago that Ladera Linda had a Montessori School as a tenant and at that time the City Council decided
not to renew their lease, because the Staff estimated that it would cost over $100,000 to replace the gas line
leading to the school, and that would not be economical. Would this repair job have solved the problem 2 years
ago so that the City could have retained the Montessori School as a tenant, while receiving around $60,000 in
annual lease payments from them?
B) In the July 2nd Council meeting, Change Order #1 for San Ramon Canyon was discussed. Item #6, page 6-
1 in the Regular Business Section of tonight's meeting describes Change Order #4. What happened to Change
Order #2 and #3? What were they for?
1
PURCHASE AND SALE AGR.EEMENT AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
This PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS (this
"Agreement") is dated as of Tifu{5:-!!i , 2013 ("the Effective Date") and is entered into by
and between JEFFERY J. RICH Sand SHERIE. RICHARDS, Trustees of the Richards
Revocable Family Trust dated January 26, 1989 (collectively, "Seller") and the CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a municipal corporation C'Buyer").
RECITAL
Seller desires to sell to Buyer and Buyer, desires to purchase from Seller the
underdeveloped land situated in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State
of California, described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "Property").
NOW, THER.EFOR.E, in consideration of the terms and conditions of this Agreement
and other valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Buyer and
Seller agree as follows:
1. Purchase and Sale. Seller agrees to sell Property to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to
purchase the Property from Seller subject to and in accordance with the terms and conditions
hereinafter set forth.
2. Opening and Closing of Escrow. The parties shall open an escrow ("Escrow")
with First American Title Company ("Escrow Holder") at (5 First American Way, Santa Ana,
California 92707, Escrow Officer: Brenna Ryan, Jr. (Phone: 714/250-5392; Email:
bryan(@.firstam.com)], and shall deliver a copy of this fully executed Agreement to Escrow. The
phrase ';Close of Escrow" shall mean the date that a grant deed for Property in favor of Buyer is
recorded in the Official Records of the County of Los Angeles. The Close of Escrow sha11 occur
on or before August 31, 2013 (the "Outside Closing Date").
3. Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Property to be paid by Buyer is
Eighteen Thousand Seven Hundred and No/100 Dollars ($18,700.00) (the "Purchase Price").
Seller hereby waives and releases, and agrees not to assign or assert, any claims against Buyer
that Seller may have that relate directly or indirectly to the Property or the larger property owned
by Seller of which the Property is a part, or the acts or omissions of Buyer in connection
therewith (excluding express obligations of Buyer under the provisions of this Agreement)
including, without limitation, any claims for damages based on inverse condemnation, any
claims for relocation rights or benefits, and any claims for additional compensation.
In connection with the claims released hereunder, Seller hereby waives and
relinquishes all rights and benefits they may have under California Civil Code Section 1542,
which provides as follows:
R6876-000 I\ I .5757 I 6v3.doc F
"A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE
CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER
FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF
KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HA VE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS
OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR"
&Bl? ;j(:l&
Seller's Initials
4. Title and Title Insurance.
Buyer's fee title to Property shall be insured at the Close of Escrow by an CLTA
Standard Coverage Owner's Policy of Title Insurance in the amount of the Purchase Price at
Buyer's cost, issued by First American Title Insurance Company ("Title Company") whose
address· is 323 Court Street, San Bernardino, California 9240 l, Title Officer: Matt Hooks (Phone:
(909) 380-8738; Email: mhooks@firstam.com) (the "Title Policy").
Buyer acknowledges receipt of a title report for the Property issued by Title
Company and dated April 29, 2013 and copies of the title exception documents listed therein.
Buyer hereby approves such report and title exceptions.
Seller shall not encumber the Property from the Effective Date to the earlier of the
Close of Escrow or the termination of this Agreement.
5. Due Diligence: Right of Entry. [INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]
6. Deposit of Documents and Fund's in Escrow.
(a) Seller and Buyer, as applicable, hereby covenant and agree to deliver to
Escrow Holder at least one (I) business day prior to Close of Escrow the following instruments,
documents, and funds.
(b) Seller shall deliver:
(i) A Grant Deed in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "ff' duly
executed and acknowledged by Seller;
(ii) A Certification of Non-Foreign Status in accordance with Internal
Revenue Code Section 1445 duly executed by Seller; and
(iii) Such proof of Seller1s authority and authorization to enter into this
transaction as the Title Company may reasonably require in order to issue the Title Policy.
(c) Buyer shall deliver:
(i) The Purchase Price, together with such funds as are required to pay
for costs and expenses payable by Buyer hereunder;
R6876·0001\I575716v3.doc
(ii) A Certificate of Acceptance in the form attached to the form of
Grant Deed, duly executed;
(iii) A Preliminary Change of Ownership form; and
(iv) Such proof of Buyer's authority and authorization to enter into this
transaction as the Title Company may reasonably require in order to issue the Title Policy.
7. Authorization to Record Documents and Disburse Funds. Escrow Holder is
hereby authorized to record the documents and disburse the funds and distribute the documents
called for hereunder upon the Close of Escrow, provided each of the following conditions has
then been fulfilled:
(a) The Title Company is committed to issue in favor of Buyer the Title
Policy, with a liability in the amount of the Purchase Price, showing fee title to the Property
vested in Buyer, subject only to the Title Exceptions.
(b) Seller and Buyer shall have deposited in Escrow the documents and funds
required pursuant to Section 6.
8. Prorations; Charges. The second installment of property taxes and assessments
for the 201212013 tax year shall not be prorated; Seller may apply for a refund from the County
assessor/tax collector for the period after the Close of Escrow. Buyer shall pay: (i) the cost of
the premium for the CL TA Title Policy, (ii) all costs and charges for the recordation of the Grant
Deed, (iii) any documentary or other local transfer taxes on the transfer of the Property, (iv) the
escrow fees and charges; (v) title endorsementsjfrequested by Buyer. If the Escrow shall fail to
close for any reason other than Seller's default, Buyer shall pay any applicable Escrow and title
cancellation charges.
9. Condemnation; Damage. If at any time prior to the Close of Escrow, the
Property, or any portion thereof, is appropriated through eminent domain or similar proceedings,
or is condemned for any public or quasi-public use, Buyer may terminate this Agreement. If
Buyer terminates this Agreement, Seller shall be entitled to receive all condemnation proceeds
actually paid for that portion of the property taken. If Buyer elects to maintain this Agreement in
full force and effect, then upon Close of Escrow, Buyer shall be entitled to receive all
condemnation proceeds actually paid for that portion of the Property taken (or, if such proceeds
have been paid to Seller, Buyer shall receive a credit against the Purchase Price equal to the
amount of proceeds actually paid to Seller). Buyer shall not be entitled to any reduction in the
Purchase Price.
10. Default. In the event of a breach or default under this Agreement by either Seller
or Buyer that is not cured within five ( 5) business days after written notice to the defaulting
party, the non-defaulting party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement and the Escrow
for the purchase and sale of the Property by delivering written notice thereof to the defaulting
party and to Escrow Holder, and if Buyer is the non-defaulting party, Buyer shall thereupon
promptly receive a refund of the Deposit. Such right of termination of the Escrow by the non-
defaulting party shall be without prejudice to the non-defaulting party's rights and remedies
R6876.()()0J\IS7S716v3.doc
against the defaulting party at law or equity, and specifically the right to specific performance of
this Agreement.
11. Notices. All notices and demands shall be given in writing by certified mail,
postage prepaid, and return receipt requested, or by recognized national courier service or by
personal delivery. Notices shall be considered given upon the earlier of (a) personal delivery or
(b) two (2) business days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, certified
mail, return receipt requested or the following business day if sent by overnight courier. A copy
of all notices shall be sent to Escrow Holder. Notices shall be addressed as provided below for
the respective party; provided that if any party gives notice in writing of a change of name or
address, notices to such party shall thereafter be given as demanded in that notice:
Buyer:
Seller:
Escrow Holder:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Attn: City Manager
Jeffery J. Richards and
Sheri E. Richards, Trustees
2717 Colt Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
See Section 2.
12. Broker's Commissions. Each party represents to the other that if the representing
party did not engage a broker, salesperson or finder ("Broker") in connection with the
transaction. Each party shall defend, indemnify and hold the other party harmless from and
against any and all claims for any broker's commissions or similar compensation that may be
payable to a Broker based on communications between the indemnifying party and any broker,
salesperson or finder. The provisions of this Section shall survive the Close of Escrow.
13. Standard Escrow Instructions. Each party agrees to execute Escrow Holder's
supplemental standard instructions if required by Escrow Holder in order to consummate the
transactions contemplated by this Agreement, however, such instructions must be reasonable and
must not materially conflict with this Agreement.
14. Time is of the Essence. The parties hereto agree that time is of the essence with
respect to each term, condition and covenant hereof.
15. Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement are expressly binding
upon, and shall inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their successors in interest and
assigns.
16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with all exhibits hereto, integrates
all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and supersedes all
negotiations or previous agreements between the parties or their predecessors in interest with
respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. In particular, nothing contained herein
R6876-0001\1S7S716v3.doc
shall be deemed to require or obligate Buyer to grant or approve any application or permit to
develop the larger property owned by Seller of which the Property is a part.
17. Severability. Invalidation of any of the terms, conditions, covenants, or other
provisions contained herein by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any of the other
terms, conditions, covenants, or provisions hereof, and the same shall remain in full force and
effect.
18. Attorneys' Fees. In the event that suit is brought for the enforcement of this
Agreement or as the result of any alleged breach thereof, the prevailing party or parties in such
suit shall be entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses from the
losing party or parties, and any judgment or decree rendered in such proceedings shall include an
award thereof.
19. No Third Party Beneficiary Rights. This Agreement is entered into for the sole
benefit of Seller and Buyer and no other parties are intended to be direct or incidental
beneficiaries of this Agreement.
20. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
21. Countemarts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute
one and the same instrument. For purposes of this Agreement, facsimile signatures shall be
deemed to be original signatures, and shall be followed by the immediate overnight delivery of
original signature pages.
R6876-0001\l S7S716v3.doc
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of
the date first above written.
BUYER:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
By:, ____________ _
Attest:
Susan Brooks,
Mayor
Carla Morreale, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Carol W. Lynch of Richards, Watson &
Gershon, City Attorney
R6876-000l \l 575716v3.doc
SELLER:
-----1-~[/rHA~-+4~~~,L.-++-~r«S~
Je ry c s, rustee ds
Revocable Family Trust dated January 26, 1989
dkt&!:Y:fA,s1&
Sheri E. Richards, Trustee of the Richards
Revocable Family Trust dated January 26, 1989
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND
THAT PORTION OF LOT 8 OF TRACT NO. 20856, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 636, PAGES 67 THROUGH 69, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, IN
THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 8;
THENCE NORTH 80°02'41" EAST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 8, A
DISTANCE OF 35.01 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 35.00 FEET
EASTERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE MOST WESTERLY LINE OF
SAID LOT 8;
THENCE SOUTH 11°02'12" EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF
524.26 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 8;
THENCE SOUTH 26°47'40" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF
57.06 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 8;
THENCE NORTH 11°02'12" WEST ALONG THE MOST WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT
8, A DISTANCE OF 570.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
R6876-000l\IS7S716v3.doc
R6876-000l\IS75716v3.doc
EXIHBIT "B"
FORM OF GRANT DEED
(Attached.)
RECORDING REQUESTED BY,
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO
(AND MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO):
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
APN: Portion of7561-039-002
[SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY]
This document is exempt from the payment of a recording fee
pursuant to Government Code Section 27383
Exempt from Documentary Transfer Tax; conveyance to a public entity.
GRANT DEED
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
JEFFERY J. RICHARDS and SHERIE. RICHARDS, Trustees of the Richards Revocable
Family Trust dated January 26, 1989 (the "Orantor") hereby grants to the CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES ("Grantee") the land in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los
Angeles, State of California, more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and all
improvements thereon (the "Property").
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Grant Deed as of the date set forth
below.
Dated: JlA.~ / 6~013
R6876-000l\1575716v3.doc
heri E. Richards, Trustee of e Richards
Revocable Family Trust dated January 26, 1989
State of California
County of Los Angeles
)
)
On __________ _. before me, _____________ _
(insert name and tide of the officer)
Notary Public, personally appeared-------------------'
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument
the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
\Yfl'NESS my hand and official seal.
State of California
County of Los Angeles
)
)
(Seal)
On __________ _. before me,---.-----------
(insert name and tide of the officer) Notary Public, personally appeared __________________ _
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument
the person(s ), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature. _____________ _ (Seal)
R6876-0001\1S7S716v3.doc
EXHIBIT "A" TO GRANT DEED
Le&al Description of the Land
THAT PORTION OF LOT 8 OF TRACT NO. 20856, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 636, PAGES 67 THROUGH 69, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, IN
THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 8;
THENCE NORTH 80°02'41" EAST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 8, A
DISTANCE OF 35.01 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 35.00 FEET·
EASTERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE MOST WESTERLY LINE OF
SAID LOTS;
THENCE SOUTH 11°02'12" EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF
524.26 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 8;
THENCE SOUTH 26°47'40" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF
57.06 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 8;
THENCE NORTH 11°02'12" WEST ALONG THE MOST WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT
8, A DISTANCE OF 570.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
R6876-000l\IS7S716v3.doc:
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
(California Government Code Section 27281)
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by that certain Grant Deed
dated in 2013, from JEFFEREY J. RICHARDS and SHERIE. RICHARDS,
Trustees of the Richards Revocable Family Trust dated January 26, 1989, to the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes, which is a political corporation, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on
behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes pursuant to the authority conferred by action of the
City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on July 16, 2013, and the grantee consents to
recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
Dated: , 2013 ----
R6876-0001\1S7S7I6v3.dix:
Print Name: Carolyn Lehr
Title: City Manager
EXHIBfl'MA•
LEGAL DSSCRIPTION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THAT PORJ'ION OF LOT B OF TRACT NO. 20858, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGaES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AJJ SHOWN ON MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 038, PAGES ffl THROUGH 89. INCt.USIVE, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AJJ FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 8;
THENCE NORTtl 80°02'41" EAST ALONG THE NORTHERLY UNE OF SAID LOT 8, A
DISTANCE OF SS.01 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 36.00 FEET EASTERLY.
MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE MOST WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 8;
THENCE SOUTH 11'02'12• EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE. A DISTANCE OF 624.26
FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF MID LOT B;
THENCE SOUTH W4r40" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE. A DISTANCE OF 67.oe
FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 8;
THENCE NORTH 11"02'12" WEST ALONG THE MOST WESTERL V LINE OF SAID LOT 8, A
DISTANCE OF 670.00 FEET TO THE POIHT OF BEGINNING.
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 18,150 SQUARE FEET (0.439&
ACRES), MORE OR LYS.
ALL AJJ SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B", ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART THEREOF.
THIS REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPl"ION HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME. OR UNDER MY
DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S Ar:r.
~"""' R!lllll• ../~S(P.LS, 7684 DATE
THIS DOCUMENT PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
APRIL 18, 2012
PAGE10F1
I
0 so 100
SCALE: l"•IOO'
iA-T
P.0.8.
:•t .. ~
a·~ ,,, ...
N
Ci
ir: :i:
!,O :"':
1-
::~
··'; : ...
~n
~-f't
::: :;:
, ..
:;~
fl! , ..
EXHIBIT "8"
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
mitiQ
r:>.o.e.
CZJ
PAGE l OF I
POtliT or BEGINNING
AREA Or OEDIC...TION
;J;1e,1so s.r. (0.4396 AC.)
~r:'azl~ o+/1a/12 iiiCHAAOC:iWIER, Pts 756+ (CA)
THIS DOCUMENT PREl.JMINAAY UNL£SS SIGNED
KCM MEfll~, INC, -22541 ASPAN S'(,, STE. C -LAKE fORtsr, CA. 92630 -PH. (9+9}768-0731 FAX (949) 768-3731
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Don <dreeves895@aol.com>
Monday, July 15, 2013 4:54 PM
Dennis Mclean
cc
Re: Storm Drain User Fee
In this case I do not believe you corrected anything.
1. My point was that the ability of the CC to repeal Chapter 3.44 was not included in the attachment -very clever of city
hall not to mention this which allows the travesty of going back and getting the 2% not approved last year. Most took that
statement (highlighted below) at face value w/o looking at Ordinance 418.
2. My 47 vote# is correct and the estimated 11-12% #is dead on. The attempt to repeal it did fail because we had to let
the 20% who do not pay it actually vote on it -too bad we could not do another mail-in vote of those who do. You did not
mention that the 20% got to vote and the margin was 12% -actually 6% over the 50% point. The CPI is irrelevant for
several reasons but especially in what the CC has to do to recapture last year's zero increase.
3. No one said this CC or this City Mgr were there -this group does have a chance to do the right thing but I am not
confident that 3 of them really care about their stated fiscal conservatism considering what they continue to fund.
Thank you but in this case my "facts" were right on.
Don
d reeves895@aol.com
Subject: RE: Storm Drain User Fee
Don
Just a short reply email to correct a factual error and offer some context about your email, dated 7/14/2013, below:
The 2005 mail notice (attached) and ballot included the following explanation about the user fee methodology (as did
other forms of public information):
"Commencing with FY 2007-08, the maximum rate per ERU will increase by the amount of the increase of
the CPI, but not to exceed two percent (2o/o) each year. However, each year the City Council will
hold a public hearing and determine the actual rate per ERU that will be charged. At the Public Hearing, the
City Council will set the actual rate for the next year that would be equal to or less than the maximum rate
approved by the property owners, which could include setting the rate to $0 per ERU."
Yes, the 2005 mail ballot established the user fee by a 47 vote majority. However, the ballot measure to terminate the
user fee failed by a 56-44% margin during the municipal election in 2007.
Yes, if the Council elects to increase the user fee to $96.27 for FY13-14, it would result in an aggregate increase of the
user fee rate of about 11.4% over seven years, while the CPI has increased 14.6% over the same period. The City
collects about $1.3 million annually.
None of the Council was seated during the 2006 mail ballot that established the user fee, or the 2007 municipal election
that established the 10-year sunset and formalized the Oversight Committee. The City had a different City Manager. I
thought it might be helpful to offer some historical context with my reply. As always, feel free to call me if you have any
questions.
Thanks,
Dennis McLean
Director of Finance and Information Technology
1 /.
~ City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Finance and Information Technology
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www. pa losverdes. com/rpv
dennism@rpv.com -(310) 544-5212 p-(310) 544-5291 f
~ Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are
not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Don [mailto:dreeves895@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 6:43 PM
To: CC
Subject: Storm Drain User Fee
Recently, I castigated the Oversight Committee and the CC for the farmer's recommendation to include last year's 2%
increase with this ye-ar's for an increase of 4%. I believe this would increase the ERU about $10 or about 11-12% from its
inception.
This led to an informative dialogue with Dennis McLean who pointed out that Ordinance 418 includes Section 3.44.020
Part G (i) that allows the CC to repeal Chapter 3.44 without a vote of the property owners.
Shame on me for not rereading all of Ordinances 417 and 418 and Resolution No. 2005-101 before posting my e-mail. I
am also embarrassed that we did not address the former in detail during the initial vote that passed by 47 votes (-0.8%).
I must also compliment Long, Stern, Clark and Wolowicz (Dr. Gardiner voted No), the City Mgr. and the City Attorney for
crafting this ordinance which was not mentioned in the actual voter ballot -to be fair, I do not recall any material
accompanying the ballot that did refer to it -not including all the "educational" material that was sent to the 80% of the
people who are paying this fee.
There are documentation requirements in Sections 3, 4 and 5 that I assume will be checked by the CC. Section 6 is
· interesting in that it gives the CC authority to amend the procedures, rules and regulations to implement the Ordinance.
Somehow, I see a strategy to avoid the upcoming Sunset later approved by the voters.
In any event, it will be interesting to see who votes to repeal Chapter 3.44 and whether anyone has the courage to zero
out an unnecessary increase. Hopefully, I have now correctly read the Ordinance.
Thank you for listening,
Don Reeves
d reeves895@aol.com
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Carolyn Lehr
Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:00 PM
Carla Morreale
FW: Storm Drain User Fee Questions
Late Correspondence.
From: Susan [mailto:subrooks08@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 3:27 PM
To: Les Jones
Cc: Carolyn Lehr; Dennis Mclean; Ron Dragoo; Andy Winje
Subject: Re: Storm Drain User Fee Questions
Thanks for your response, Les. Under the circumstances, I believe that's appropriate. Council has the
responsibility to know exactly what is at stake with each expenditure (or lack, thereof) option.
Susan Brooks
Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 16, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Les Jones <LesJ@rpv.com> wrote:
I received your email this morning and met with staff to discuss it. Unfortunately, providing a quality
response will require more preparation time than available today. If the item can be continued until
August 6, staff would be in position to provide a better result for your consideration. To this end,
inquiries were made with Harris and Associates to ascertain if a continuance is possible. Their reply was
that this could continue to the August 6 meeting as the deadline for submittal to the County is August 8.
Do you think that continuing the item until August 6 is an acceptable course for you and the City
Council? Please advise.
Les Jones
Interim Director of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Telephone: 310-544-5252
Fax: 310-544-5292
Email: lesj@rpv.com
From: Mayor Susan Brooks [mailto:subrooks08@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:14 PM
To: Les Jones
Cc: Dennis Mclean
Subject: Storm Drain User Fee Questions
Hi Les.
I'm sorry for the late notice, but I have some questions regarding the proposed fee increase for
tomorrow's Public Hearing. With last year's decision to hold off any fee increase, I'd like some
specifics regarding exactly which projects would be affected by the following:
1. Is $1.3 million the potential revenue if there is a 4% increase?
2. What projects would be included in that rate?
2. What projects would be affected immediately if we eliminate the fee entirely?
3. What projects would be prioritized with a 2% increase?
I believe this is important information for us to know before we address this issue in order to
select the appropriate option. Again, I'm sorry for the late notice and I'm hoping you can help.
Thanks.
Susan
Susan Brooks, Mayor
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
(310) 541-2971 home
l<imageOO 1.jpg>j
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Council Members,
April Sandell <hvybags@cox.net>
Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:14 PM
cc
Lacombe Lacombe
Agenda item: Western Avenue Vision Plan
With all due respect, installing bike lanes on Western would benefit a few bicyclers at the expense of thousands of daily
vehicle travelers for years to come. It seems to me 99% of the vision plan amounts to far fetched thinking, at best. So,
I must assume the single goal is to install bike lanes and nothing more.
I don't think the Vision Plan creators truly believe various commercial property owners on Western Ave. would willingly
tear down buildings. and business income in order to rebuild according to the ideas in the proposed plan.
I do like the pictures and drawings. Really nicely done.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
April L. Sandell
1 3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ron Dragoo
Tuesday, July 16, 2013 12:34 PM
Jerry Duhovic Qduhovic@hotmail.com)
CC; Carolyn Lehr; Les Jones
RE: Questions for SR Change #2
Haris acceptance Outlet Structure.pdf
Good Morning Mayor Pro-tern Duhovic,
Attached is a copy of the acceptance letter from Harris we received Friday for your use. We will include a copy
of their letter in the late correspondence this evening.
The $292K amount shown on the CC0#4 form, which is attached to the staff report, references the running total
of all changes to the contract including the credit of $315,334.40 and a change (due to differing site conditions)
totaling $22,868.00. Adding to two the running total equals $292,466.40.
Best regards,
Ron Dragoo, P .E.
Senior Engineer
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5253 Office
(310) 544-5292 FAX
From: Les Jones
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 5:20 PM
To: Ron Dragoo; Alan Braatvedt
Subject: FW: Questions for SR Change #2
Les Jones
Interim Director of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Telephone: 310-544-5252
Fax: 310-544-5292
Email: lesj@rpv.com
From: Jerry Duhovic [mailto:councilmanduhovic@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 4:14 PM
To: Carolyn Lehr; Les Jones
Subject: Questions for SR Change #2
Hello Carolyn and Les,
6.
With respect to the most recent value engineering change to be discussed tomorrow, do we have
formal notification document from Harris & Associates that denotes they "approved" of the change as
is reflected in the Staff Report. The letter included in the Staff Report from Harris doesn't explicitly
say that. Having a document that explicitly states "approved" is imperative.
Also, I noticed that the previous savings for Change#! denoted on the Change Order went from
$315K to $292K (and change). Please advise as to the reason for the different number.
Thank you.
Regards,
Jerry
Jerry V. Duhovic
Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Pro Tem
jer[Y.duhovic@rpv.com
City Hall:(310}544-5207
Cell: 310 502-8036
Memo
To: Alan Braatvedt
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Public Works Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Date: July 12, 2013
Cc: J:mzabeth Reyes, PE
Harris & Associates
From: Randall Berry, PE Program Managers
-------.,.;;,.,,;,.--Construction Managers
Civil Engineers
Subject: Alt Outlet structure design calculations for the San Ramon Canyon SD Proiect Ev: Request D For Review _o_P_1e_a_s_e_c_o_m_m_en_t __ o_P_•_e_as_e_-_~=--p-~ly~--o-_o~n-·_g~in_·-a_1-s~A~tta--_-c~h=•~
Comments:
We accept the proposed alternative design change for the outlet structure in principle, with the
understanding that it is subject to final review and acceptance of the full structural Submittal
package.
Thank you for the opportunity to review these submittals and, as usual, don't hesitate to call or
e-mail if you have any questions or require anything additional.
Sincerely,
Randall Berry, PE
34 Executive Park, Suite 150 Irvine, California 92614-4705 (949) 655-3900x314 FAX (949) 655-3995 lrvine@harris-assoc.com
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Mr. Rodich
Les Jones
Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:21 PM
mickeyrodich@gmail.com
Anthony Misetich; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Carolyn Lehr
FW: A) Ladera Linda Gas Line & B) San Ramon Canyon Change Orders
This is in response to your inquiries related to the repair of the gas line at Ladera Linda School and change orders at San
Ramon:
1. Ladera Linda School ... Indeed, you are correct that this invoice was for the temporary repair of the gas line at
Ladera Linda. As you probably know, there are some temporary uses at the facility and recreation staff is
available at the location. The gas repair was done to provide gas service and thus alleviate the electrical
demand which, in my opinion, posed a safety threat to the users and the facility. However, the repair only
sought to address the known conditions of deterioration to the existing gas line. It did not provide a permanent
replacement of the gas line ... an improvement that I would have recommended if this facility was home to a
permanent Montessori School that hosted small children on a regular, ongoing basis.
In addition, a more intensive use such as a Montessori school would also have required the City to address the
inadequate sewer line from the facility and the water service to the facility. I understand that they also suffer
the challenges of age and deterioration. Consequently, while this repair is holding at the present, I would
recommend that the community consider making longer lasting improvements in this facility if, in fact, you wish
to engage it for more intense use.
2. San Ramon Change Orders ... The other two change orders were for roadway striping and the installation of
concrete slurry in the canyon due to differing site conditions. (The striping change was a zero dollar
change and the value of the concrete slurry within the canyon is $22,868.00).
Les Jones
Interim Director of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Telephone: 310-544-5252
Fax: 310-544-5292
Email: lesj@rpv.com
From: Mayor Susan Brooks [mailto:subrooks08@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 12:17 PM
To: Mickey Rodich
Cc: CC; Les Jones
Subject: Re: A) Ladera Linda Gas Line & B) San Ramon canyon Change Orders
Mickey,
I'm requesting of Les Jones that he reply to your email and cc us .. These are Public Works issues. Thanks,
Susan
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> wrote:
1
A) In the Staff report for tonight's meeting I noticed that included in the Consent Calendar under Item D,
Register of Demands, on Page D-4 there is an entry # V 904 from Bob and Marc Plumbing. It describes it as
LL, which I think means Ladera Linda. The expenditure is for $10,690 for the repair of gas lines. It was just a
few years ago that Ladera Linda had a Montessori School as a tenant and at that time the City Council decided
not to renew their lease, because the Staff estimated that it would cost over $100,000 to replace the gas line
leading to the school, and that would not be economical. Would this repair job have solved the problem 2 years
ago so that the City could have retained the Montessori School as a tenant, while receiving around $60,000 in
annual lease payments from them?
B) In the July 2nd Council meeting, Change Order #1 for San Ramon Canyon was discussed. Item #6, page 6-
1 in the Regular Business Section of tonight's meeting describes Change Order #4. What happened to Change
Order #2 and #3? What were they for?
Susan Brooks, Mayor
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
310) 541-2971 home
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Tuesday, July 16, 2013 12:03 PM
cc
A) Ladera Linda Gas Line & B) San Ramon Canyon Change Orders
A) In the Staff report for tonight's meeting I noticed that included in the Consent Calendar under Item D,
Register of Demands, on Page D-4 there is an entry # V 904 from Bob and Marc Plumbing. It describes it as
LL, which I think means Ladera Linda. The expenditure is for $10,690 for the repair of gas lines. It was just a
few years ago that Ladera Linda had a Montessori School as a tenant and at that time the City Council decided
not to renew their lease, because the Staff estimated that it would cost over $100,000 to replace the gas line
leading to the school, and that would not be economical. Would this repair job have solved the problem 2 years
ago so that the City could have retained the Montessori School as a tenant, while receiving around $60,000 in
annual lease payments from them?
B) In the July 2nd Council meeting, Change Order #1 for San Ramon Canyon was discussed. Item #6, page 6-
1 in the Regular Business Section of tonight's meeting describes Change Order #4. What happened to Change
Order #2 and #3? What were they for?
1
CrTYOF
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JULY 15, 2013
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached·are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, July 16, 2013 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
1 Email response from Director Mclean to Don Reeves
4 Email response from Mayor Brooks to Ann Shaw
6 Email from Senior Engineer Dragoo
Respectfully submitted,
~9&uAJL
Carla Morreale
W:\AGENDA\2013 Additions Revisions to agendas\20130716 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Don
Dennis Mclean
Monday, July 15, 2013 12:27 PM
Don; CC
Carolyn Lehr; Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>
RE: Storm Drain User Fee
rpv ballot 10jun05 FINAL.pdf; RPVnotice v9_FINAL.pdf
Just a short reply email to correct a factual error and offer some context about your email, dated 7 /14/2013, below:
The 2005 mail notice (attached) and ballot included the following explanation about the user fee methodology (as did
other forms of public information):
"Commencing with FY 2007-08, the maximum rate per ERU will increase by the amount of the increase of the CPI, but not to exceed two
percent (2%) each year. However, each year the City Council will hold a public hearing and determine the actual rate per ERU that will be
charged. At the Public Hearing, the City Council will set the actual rate for the next year that would be equal to or less than the maximum rate
approved by the property owners, which could include setting the rate to $0 per ERU."
Yes, the 2005 mail ballot established the user fee by a 47 vote majority. However, the ballot measure to terminate the
user fee failed by a 56-44% margin during the municipal election in 2007.
Yes, if the Council elects to increase the user fee to $96.27 for FY13-14, it would result in an aggregate increase of the
user fee rate of about 11.4% over seven years, while the CPI has increased 14.6% over the same period. The City
collects about $1.3 million annually.
None of the Council was seated during the 2006 mail ballot that established the user fee, or the 2007 municipal election
that established the 10-year sunset and formalized the Oversight Committee. The City had a different City Manager. I
thought it might be helpful to offer some historical context with my reply. As always, feel free to call me if you have any
questions.
Thanks,
Dennis Mclean
Director of Finance and Information Technology
~ City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Finance and Information Technology
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
dennism@rpv.com -(310) 544-5212 p-(310) 544-5291 f
r;,,,'; Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only tor use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or am not an intended recipient, please notify the sEmder immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Don [mailto:dreeves895@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 6:43 PM
I
To: CC
Subject: Storm Drain User Fee
Recently, I castigated the Oversight Committee and the CC for the former's recommendation to include last year's 2%
increase with this year's for an increase of 4%. I believe this would increase the ERU about $10 or about 11-12% from its
inception.
This led to an informative dialogue with Dennis McLean who pointed out that Ordinance 418 includes Section 3.44.020
Part G (i) that allows the CC to repeal Chapter 3.44 without a vote of the property owners.
Shame on me for not rereading all of Ordinances 417 and 418 and Resolution No. 2005-101 before posting my e-mail. I
am also embarrassed that we did not address the former in detail during the initial vote that passed by 47 votes (-0.8%).
I must also compliment Long, Stern, Clark and Wolowicz (Dr. Gardiner voted No), the City Mgr. and the City Attorney for
crafting this ordinance which was not mentioned in the actual voter ballot -to be fair, I do not recall any material
accompanying the ballot that did refer to it -not including all the "educational" material that was sent to the 80% of the
people who are paying this fee.
There are documentation requirements in Sections 3, 4 and 5 that I assume will be checked by the CC. Section 6 is
interesting in that it gives the CC authority to amend the procedures, rules and regulations to implement the Ordinance.
Somehow, I see a strategy to avoid the upcoming Sunset later approved by the voters.
In any event, it will be interesting to see who votes to repeal Chapter 3.44 and whether anyone has the courage to zero
out an unnecessary increase. Hopefully, I have now correctly read the Ordinance.
Thank you for listening,
Don Reeves
dreeves895@aol.com
Rancho Palos Verdes Storm Drain User Fee -Official Property Owner Ballot
Assessor's Parcel Number: <APN> [----bar code -<APN>----]
Owner Name: <Owner1 > <Owner2>
Proposed Maximum FY 06-07 Annual Fee Amount*** (see below): $ <Fee>
To provide the City of Rancho Palos Verdes with a dedicated funding source to:
• Repair, reconstruct and maintain the storm drain system throughout the City and
• Install filtration devices to reduce polluted runoff and protect coastal water quality,
shall the City establish a new annual Storm Drain User Fee as part of the City's Water Quality and Flood Protection Program?
D YES I support the proposed annual Storm Drain User Fee
D NO I oppose the proposed annual Storm Drain User Fee
I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that I am the owner, or the authorized
representative of the owner, of the parcel identified above. Your ballot will not be counted if you do not sign below.
Date Printed Name
Rancho Palos Verdes needs to spend about $25 million (in 2005
dollars) over approximately 30 years to repair its deteriorating storm
drain system. The City recently established a Water Quality and Flood
Protection Program, funded with a $2 million contribution from General
Fund Reserves. However, the City does not currently have sufficient
Reserves or net revenue to fund the cost of the Program. If Reserves
were used to fund the Program, they would be nearly depleted in about
five years. Property owners are now being asked to vote on an annual
Storm Drain User Fee to provide a dedicated funding source for the
Program.
Signature
Assessor's Parcel Number: <APN>
Property Address: <Situs>
Land Use Designation: <Landuse>
Parcel Area (acres): <Acres>
Impervious Percentage: <Impervious>
ERUs: <ERU>
Proposed Max. FY 06-07 Annual Fee Amount***$ <Max_Asmt>
The person completing and submitting this Property Owner Ballot must be the owner of the property identified above or the representative of
the owner of such property who is legally authorized to complete and submit this ballot for and on behalf of the owner. The "Summary of
Property Owner Ballot Procedures" on the back of this ballot sheet has been provided to assist you in filling out the ballot. If there are two or
more property owners, only one needs to sign and return the ballot. Only one ballot will be counted per property.
*** If approved by a majority of the returned ballots, the proposed maximum annual Storm Drain User Fee rate for FY 2006-07 will be $86.00
per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU), which equates to $7.17 per ERU per month. Commencing with FY 2007-08, the maximum rate per
ERU will increase by the amount of the increase of the CPI, but not to exceed two percent (2%) each year. However, each year the City
Council will hold a public hearing and determine the actual rate per ERU that will be charged. At the Public Hearing, the City Council will
set the actual rate for the next year that would be equal to or less than the maximum rate approved by the property owners, which could
include setting the rate to $0 per ERU.
Please mark your ballot in ink. Do not use pencil.
Upon completion, fold the ballot, place it in the addressed, return envelope and seal the envelope. Pursuant to the instructions on the back of
this ballot sheet, mail the ballot to the address shown on the return envelope, or deliver to City Hall located at 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho
Palos Verdes, CA 90275. Ballots must be received by 8:00 p.m. Tuesday, August 30, 2005.
Please see the "Summary of Property Owner Ballot Procedures" on the back of this sheet.
For additional information about the annual Storm Drain User Fee, please see the enclosed legal notice.
<Owner1>
<Owner2>
<Mailing>
<MCity> <MZip>
--This is not an invoice --
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City Clerk
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
SUMMARY OF PROPERTY OWNER BALLOT PROCEDURES
If you are the owner, or the authorized representative of the owner, of the property described on the enclosed Property Owner Ballot,
you may submit the enclosed Property Owner Ballot to the City to support or oppose the proposed annual Storm Drain User Fee.
Complete Property Owner Balloting Procedures are on file at the City Clerk's office. Please follow the instructions below to complete
and return your Property Owner Ballot.
1. Mark your vote on the enclosed Property Owner Ballot by placing an "X" in the appropriate box.
2. Mark, sign and date your Property Owner Ballot in ink. Property Owner Ballots received without a signature will not be counted.
Do not use pencil.
3. Fold your ballot and place it into the provided pre-addressed return envelope and seal the envelope.
4. Property Owner Ballots may be mailed or hand delivered to the City Clerk's office at 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos
Verdes, CA 90275.
5. The City MUST receive all Property Owner Ballots by 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 30, 2005. Any Property Owner Ballot
received after this time cannot legally be counted. Postmarks will not be accepted and ballots received after the deadline
will not be counted. (Property Owner Ballots may be delivered to the City Clerk prior to this date and time during normal
business hours.)
6. The tabulation of Property Owner Ballots will be performed in the City Clerk's office, during normal business hours, following the
end of the Property Owner Balloting period. The Property Owner Ballots will be tabulated electronically, and each property is
entitled to one (1) vote.
7. The City Clerk shall not disclose the contents of any ballot in such a way as to identify how a property owner voted.
8. The City Council may establish the annual Storm Drain User Fee only if a majority of the Property Owner Ballots returned are in
favor of the Fee.
9. If more than a majority of the Property Owner Ballots returned are opposed to the Fee, then the annual Storm Drain User Fee
will not be imposed.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you are a qualified individual with a disability
and need assistance with completing or returning the enclosed ballot, please contact the City Clerk's office at (310) 377-0360.
The information in this notice and the accompanying materials were compiled and are distributed at public expense by the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes in compliance with Article XlllD of the California Constitution. This information is presented in the public interest. It is not
intended to influence or attempt to influence the actions of the voters to vote "yes" or "no" on the enclosed Property Owner Ballot.
8
4
lculating the Storm Drain User Fee
A user fee is structured so property owners that use
the system most pay the most. All properties that
drain into the City's storm drain system use the storm
drain system. The amount that each parcel uses the
system can be measured by the amount of storm
runoff contributed by the property, which is directly
proportional to the amount of impervious area on a
parcel (such as buildings and concrete). The more
impervious area on a property, the more storm runoff
the property generates. Vacant, unimproved parcels
are still in their natural states and do not contribute
any additional runoff to burden the system. Therefore
these parcels are not charged a storm drain user fee.
The City developed an Impervious Percentage Table
(top right) that shows the estimated percent of
impervious cover on single-family residential (SFR)
properties, based on a 10% data sampling of SFR
parcels within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The
table recognizes that larger residential properties
are often proportionally less developed than smaller
properties and generate less runoff per square foot.
Hence, the impervious percentage rate is lower for
larger residential parcels. The median residential par-
cel in the City (roughly 1/4 acre) has an impervious
area covering 48.5% of the parcel.
Because of the variations in properties, all condo-
miniums, SFR properties larger than 3 acres, and
non-SFR properties, which include multi-family
residential, institutional (such as churches and private
schools) and government-owned properties, were
reviewed individually to determine the actual
impervious cover for each parcel. If you believe the
impervious area for your parcel is incorrect, please
contact Dennis Mclean (contact info on page 3).
About 85% of the parcels within the City are desig-
nated SFR parcels. When we multiply the size of an
SFR parcel by the impervious percentage in the table,
the resulting number is the Drainage Unit. The median
Drainage Unit for slnqle·famlly residences In Rancho
Palos Verdes Is 0.118. That median number repre-
sents one Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). The more
ERU's a parcel has, the more storm runoff it generates
and the more it uses the storm drain system.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
lmi)erviOus Percentllqe Tiif>~
Land Use Impervious AcreaQe
Sfl!l
Sfl!2
SER3
Sfl!4
% iii~
741)%
51HJ%
43.5%.
4!.0%
Mi'-0.16
0.161-0211
02,!)1'028"
01.81'°;!)4
~~
'"71"~Wl.2
-7,lll3-ll;~
~1i;t$~ii,~·
-!al<l&'~~s&;
Sfllli 345% Q~F4~ "".~~~~Ja0;~1ij}.
otl!ers
•These;~Were~~TIY·.W,dt!J:$m1!J~(t!)t!.
actual impervious ~enta,ge"fQr.~~et. ,
The amount each parcel uses the storm drain system
is computed by the following formula:
(Your Parcel (Impervious . • • Your
Acreage) x Percentage) = Drainage Units ~ 0.118 = ERU
The proposed maximum annual Storm Drain User Fee
rate for fiscal year/2006-07 is $86.00 per ERU, which
equates to $7.17 per ERU per month. For example, if
your single family residential property is .23 acre, your
Storm Drain User Fee would be calculated using this
formula:
.23 x 0.485 = 0.112 .;. 0.118 = 0.9492 ERU x $86 = $81.63
Your Storm
Drain User Fee
The parcel areas for condominiums are calculated by
dividing the total area of the condominium complex,
which includes the common areas, by the number
of condominium units. The total imperviousness of
the entire complex is attributed to each individual
condo parcel in the complex. This divides the runoff
of the entire complex to each of the individual units.
(Because the condominium common areas are taken
into consideration in this manner, they are exempt
from the charge.)
Parcels within the City that have runoff flowing out
of the City without going through any ""'·t·••n "'
Ct\·~ ~~v::i~ n:,,,,. ·:·/st~~=n are not included in this fee.
There are also a number of County-maintained pipes
within the City. If properties drain exclusively to these
pipes they are not included in the fee.
Visit www.palosverdes.com/rpv/water_quaflty_flood_protection
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
June 22, 2005
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes Property Owner.
As you know, this winter our City suffered significant damage from heavy rains. Our storm drain
system was unable to handle the amount of storm water runoff that flowed from our hills and
canyons to the ocean. The City Council responded by establishing a long-term Water Quality and
Flood Protection Program to repair and maintain our storm drain system.
As a property owner, this is your opportunity to vote on an annual Storm Drain User Fee. If
approved by property owners, the Fee would provide the City of Rancho Palos Verdes with a
dedicated funding source for u0 L 30 years, :t not 2<'ded so<:ln''' l'V the' Ctv [(,u,,cl. '''''
,jt:;c1icJh:ci funr.tng :;oun::e w=:;u~r.i be us*.:=d to:
... Repair. reconstruct and maintain the storm drain system throughout the City and
... Install filtration devices to reduce polluted runoff and protect coastal water quality.
This envelope contains your official notice about the proposed Storm Drain User Fee, a separate
official ballot and a reply envelope. Please take a moment to review the information and then
vote. Please be sure your ballot arrives at City Hall (by mail or in person) by 8 p.m., Tuesday,
August 30, 2005.
If you have any questions, please contact: Dennis Mclean, Director of Finance and lnf,:rrn:+rn,
Technology, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, (310) 544-5377 or stormdrainfee@rpv.com. You will
also find much more information on our website: www.palosverdes.com/rpv/water_quality_
flood_protection.
Thank you very much for taking the time to consider this important issue for the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes. Please vote; your vote counts!
Sincerely,
?fL
Les Evans
City Manager
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD I RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 I (310) 544-53 77 I STORMDRAINFEE@RPV.COM
®
2
STORM vscn r-Er i zoos
Notice to Property Owners and
Your Property Owner Ballot for the
Proposed Storm Drain User Fee
in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
This notice informs you, as an owner of property
within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, that
on June 21, 2005, the City Council adopted a
Resolution authorizing the City Clerk to conduct
a Property Owner Mail Ballot vote for a proposed
annual Storm Drain User Fee. The Fee would
provide a dedicated funding source for up to 30
years for the City's Water Quality and Flood
Protection Program (Program). To submit the
enclosed Property Owner Ballot. please follow the
directions in the "Summary of Property Owner
Ballot Procedures" on the back of your yellow
ballot sheet.Please mail or personally deliver your
ballot to the City Clerk's office at City Hall, located
at 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes,
CA 90275. Your ballot must arrive by no later than
8:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Auqust 30, 2005. Ballots
received after this deadline will not be counted.
Information about Storm Drains
and the Water Quality
and Flood Protection Program
Rancho Palos Verdes needs to spend about $25
million (in 2005 dollars) over 30 years to repair its
deteriorating storm drain system. The City recently
established the Water Quality and Flood Protection
Program, funded with a $2 million contribution from
General Fund Reserves. However. the City does not
currently have sufficient Reserves or net revenue
to fund the cost of the Program. If Reserves were
used to fund the Program, they would be nearly
depleted in about five years. Property owners are
now being asked to vote on an annual Storm Drain
User Fee to provide a dedicated funding source for
the Program, which would end or "sunset" after 3f;
y:;i-;j:-~;., ~f pc! !,: rr:·,in;H~·j >:-~~: :c t~v 1 !'\:) C;ty CounciL
The City's storm drain system (pipes, inlets, outlets
and natural drainage courses) collects and carries
storm water runoff directly to the ocean. Maintaining
the system in good condition helps keep the ocean
clean, minimizes property damage, bluff erosion,
mud flows and traffic problems due to floods and
sinkholes, and can help avoid potential lawsuits
after failures.
This winter's storms caused widespread damage
to public and private property throughout the City.
The City Council recently approved a $3 million
accelerated spending plan, funded from General
Fund Reserves: $1 million for immediate repairs and
$2 million to begin funding the Program. That was
in addition to $1.15 million the Council had previously
funded for storm drain projects.
The City established the Program to:
... Re-line about 150 deteriorated metal pipes.
... Replace about 38 storm drains.
.,. Install about 600 catch basin filtration devices in
compliance with federal storm water regulatory
requirements (and replace as needed).
.,. Engineer more efficient, system-wide solutions.
.,. Plan ahead to schedule repair and construction
projects to minimize inconvenience.
.,. Ensure continued maintenance of all storm
drains throughout the City, as newer pipes and
outlets age.
Revenue Dedicated to Storm Drains Only
If the Storm Drain User Fee is approved, the City
will be required by law to dedicate that revenue to
storm drain cor1sfru,.._t::_-i~ projects .3fid rr:,:~i::V:·:~i"ln.U:'
only. In response to property owner preferences, the
Fee will sunset in 3D years. The City has already
established a restricted Enterprise Fund that will be
audited by independent certified public accountants
in conjunction with the annual audit of the City's
financial statements. The money cannot be diverted
or used for any purpose other than storm drains.
www.palosverdes.com/rpv/water _quallty _ffood_protectlon
Information about the Proposed Fee
You'll find the proposed Storm Drain User Fee
amount for your parcel for fiscal year 2006-07, as
well as other information that was used to calculate
the Fee, on the front, middle-right hand side of your
ballot sheet. The City Council has set a proposed
annual Storm Drain User Fee that shares the cost
of the storm drain repairs based on the size of the
parcel and the estimated amount of impervious
area on the parcel (see page 4 for a full explanation
of how individual Fees would be determined).
If approved, the proposed maximum annual Storm
Drain User Fee rate for fiscal year 2006-07 will
be $86.00 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (ERU). For
fiscal year 2006-07:
... The majority of residential properties would pay
an annual storm drain user fee of less than $86
(about $7 a month).
.,. The majority of condominiums and townhouses
would pay less than $25 annually.
... Only about 3% of single-family residences would
pay more than $200 annually.
The City has established a Storm Drain User Fee
Assistance Program. The City would reimburse
50% of the annual Storm Drain User Fee to eligible
low-income property owners with gross incomes
under $35,DOO.
, Annual Public Hearing To Set the
Storm Drain User Fee
Every year, the City Council will hold a public
hearing to set the Fee for the following year, until
the Fee ends in 30 years. The Council may decide
to end the Fee early or reduce the rate (for example,
if there is another revenue source available). To
enable the Program to keep up with inflation, begin·
ning with fiscal year 2007-08, the maximum rate
per ERU that may be collected each year will
increase by the amount of increase in the
Consumer Price Index, limited to a maximum of
2% a year. During the hearing, the Council will deter-
mine the actual rate per ERU, which could remain
the same, decrease or increase. However, the rate
can never be higher than $86 per ERU, the amount
approved by property owners, as adjusted by a
maximum 2% per year.
The Mailback Ballot Process
The California Constitution requires that the pro·
posed Storm Drain User Fee must go through a
two-step process. The first step was the public
hearing held on June 21, 20D5 and the second step
is this property owner vote, which requires ballots
to be returned by 8:00 p.m. on August 30, 2005.
There is one vote per parcel. If a majority of
Property Owner Ballots returned support the pro-
posed Fee, the Fee may be established by the City
Council. If a majority of ballots returned oppose
the proposed Fee, the Fee will not be imposed. If
approved, the Fee will be collected on the annual
County Property Tax Bills beginning with fiscal year
2006-07 .
Property Owner Ballots may be mailed or hand deliv-
ered to the City Clerk's office at 30940 Hawthorne
Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. Ballots must
be received by no later than 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
August 30, 2005.
More Information
If you have any questions or you think that the area
or impervious percentage for your parcel is incor-
rect, please contact Dennis Mclean, Director of
Finance and Technology, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
at (310) 544-5377 or at stormdrainfee@rpv.com. You
will also find much more information on our website,
including information on how to appeal your Fee
amount: www.palosverdes.com/rpv/water_quality_
flood_protection.
Email: stormdralnfee@rpv.com 3
From: Mayor Susan Brooks [mailto:subrooksOS@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 11:48 AM
To: Ann Shaw
Cc: CC; Carolyn Lehr; Martin Gombert
Subject: Re: Dial-a-ride
Hi Ann,
In response to your query, the item on next Tuesdayn s agenda is minor and for information purposes only. As a
PV Transit Authority representative along with Councilman Knight,we, along with the rest of the Board,
requested that he make presentations to the three cities about the state of the Transit Authority. That is bis job.
This is not only about Dial-A-Ride and it's certainly not in jeopardy.
PVPTA plans on.increasing the cost per ride from $5 to $6 on 01-01-14.
He'll be making very brief presentations to the three Councils in July-August, before bringing it to a public
hearing in September and to the Board for final approval in October. All that for a $1.00 increase in a highly
subsidized program.
Martin said he saw your email and will make a response ASAP. He also spoke with Mary about the issue. His
presentation will be very short.
I hope this alleviates some of your concerns.
Best,
Susan
Susan Brooks
Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 541-2971
(Sent from my iPad)
On Jul 11, 2013, at 7:57 PM, Ann Shaw <anndshaw@gmail.com> wrote:
I notice that Dial-a-Ride is on the next City Council agenda (item 4). This service is critically
important to many seniors on the Peninsula who can no longer drive (or shouldn't be driving for
the safety of the community). Seniors can use this service for necessary medical appointments or
something as simple as getting to the grocery store. Many of our seniors remain in their homes
for a variety ofreasons. However, due to age and infirmity they are isolated. Dial-a-Ride is a
lifeline for these individuals.
Please do not do anything to curtail this important service. Also, please don't look at the
subsidies to Dial-a-Ride as a gift to seniors. They have lived in the community for many years
and paid their taxes all that time.
Ann Shaw,
President, Peninsula Seniors
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ron Dragoo
Friday, July 12, 2013 4:33 PM
cc
Les Jones; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>
7-16-2013 Agenda Item #6 Value Engineered Change Order Outlet Structure
CC04.pdf
Dear Mayor Brooks and Councilmen,
Staff is transmitting late correspondence specific to item #6 on the June 16th City Council
Agenda. The final negotiations with the Contractor for the redesign of the Outlet Structure
have been completed. All costs associated with the change have been taken into account
and the final gross savings to the project is $214,684, which will be shared equally between
the Contractor and the City. This results in a savings in the amount of $107,342 to the project.
The attached file is the revised Contract Change Order which is Attachment A to the Staff
Report.
Best regards,
Ron Dragoo, P.E.
Senior Engineer
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5253 Office
(310) 544-5292 FAX
1
Project: San Ramon Canyon Storm Drain System Project
C'.AlYOF ~RANCHO F1\i.Ds VERDES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Rancho
Description
-----·
Delete item #16 "Reinforced Concrete Outlet Structure and Beach Apron Complete
-~··~····---····--
Replace Item #16 with CO #4 as described in Submittal #62.1 and supporting documents
........ ············-
value engineered design to construct the alternative design outlet structure as proposed by LH Woods and
approved by Ninyo & Moore and Harris & Associates. The cost saving is shared at a 50:50 ratio with the
contractor. All expenses are included in the net saving. Note: This CO is subject to final approval of the
submittals by Harris & Associates and acceptance by the City Council.
Original Contract Value
Total Value of all Previous Change Orders
Total Revised Contract Sum Prior to this Change Order
Value of this Change Order
New Contract Sum
Change in Contract Days
Current Contract Completion Date
Accepted: LH Woods & Sons
By
Date: ___________ _
Authorized: Rancho Palos Verdes
By
Date: __________ _
Change Order# 4
Attention: Mike Ireland
L.H. Woods & Sons, Inc.
2115 La Mirada Drive
CA92801
Quantity Unit Price
I ·--·---
-50% ! 214,684.00 I LS
Total
Vista,
Amount
-107,342.00
-107,342.00
15,140,000.00
-292,466.40
14,847,533.60
-107,342.00
14,740,191.60
0
4/7/2014
Construction Manager
By
Date: ____________ _
)>
~
(")
:::::r
3
CD
:J r-+
)>