20150915 Late CorrespondenceSeptember 15, 2015
Presentation To: Rancho Palos Verdes, City Council
By:
•
Rayne Sherman
Peninsula Cities Liaison
Palos Verdes Concours d'Elegance
PV Concours
0 Date:
0 Location:
0 Free parking:
0 21 Vehicle Classes:
0 Grand Marshal:
0 Charities:
Sunday, September 20, 2015, 10 a.m.-4 p.m.
Los Verdes Golf Course
Peninsula Shopping Center and Promenade on the Peninsula -
Entrance offNorris Center Drive
Automotive Standards of the World Cadillac -Darrin Design -
Ferrari, more than 200 Classic, Antique and Special Interest Vehicles
Don Knabe, LA County's Fourth District Supervisor
Palos Verdes Rotary
Palos Verdes Art Center
Vet Corps USA I Green Vets
o Other Food and Beverage Service
New Car Display
Tesla
Land Rover
Ferrari
Pan oz
Student Car Restoration Display
Unique Shopping:
Medawar Fine Jewelers
Ferrari Store
Boutique Row
Tickets online -$30.00
Tickets at gate -$40.00
PALOS VERDES CONCOURS D'ELEGANCE
1921 South Catalina A venue #5, Redondo Beach CA 90277
1-866-522-7746 office@pvconcours.com pvconcours.org
TAX ID #59-3806869
CITY OF Rt\NCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
H
Description of Material
Email exchange between Public Works Director Throne and
Sharon Yarber; Email exchange between Senior Engineer
Winje and Lenee Bilski; Email from Sharon Yarber
Re~~
Carla Morreale
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, September 14, 2015**.
W:\AGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150915 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Yarber:
Michael Throne
Tuesday, September 15, 2015 8:01 AM
sharon yarber; CC
Andy Winje; Nicole Jules; Carla Morreale; Dave Aleshire; ssoltani@awattorneys.com;
Christina M. Burrows
RE: Sunnyside Ridge trail
Thank you for your message. The Public Contract Code does not allow the City to negotiate a publicly bid and
awarded construction contract in the way you suggest. My recommendation to the council is to follow the
code by rejecting all bids and reassess the features currently included in the project, review with the
stakeholders who have been active in the project's development a modified project (that is, what's critically
needed to build and what amenity could wait), and readvertise for new bids.
Regards,
Michael Throne, PE, PWLF
Director of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275
310 544-52 52
From: sharon yarber [mailto:momofyago@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:27 PM
To: Michael Throne <MichaelT@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Sunnyside Ridge trail
Michael,
I had your incorrect email address the first time around.
Council -I have now received the bids, they are broken down in great detail, they were received nearly THREE
weeks ago, and staff has had adequate time to review them, analyze them, figure out what we can and cannot do
without and bring something to Council (not as a consent calendar item but an agendized item) for a meaningful
discussion. Staff recommendation is NOT for more public outreach meetings. so why is this not something we
can meaningfully discuss tomorrow? Let's figure out what we HAVE to have to satisfy the grant (and I sure
hope it is not the unnecessary bridge) and then let's pick a contractor and move forward. No need to start over.
As I have analyzed them, the best bid is actually from the highest bidder if you simply back out his bridge and
bridge related costs. If we cut out some of the other "fluff' we can get to something manageable, but we need to
move quickly before jeopardizing the grant.
That said, even if we lose the grant the Council still needs to approve putting this trail in at whatever cost can
best be negotiated. This was a major screw up that needs to be rectified. May I suggest that in lieu of funding
the utter waste of money being considered for the Ha~orne Blvd. light synchronization project. which in H
reality is a ruse because it provides a solution to a non-existent problem so as to obtain funding for a pet project
that is not needed -streaming, that Council use some of those several hundred thousands of dollars for this trail
so as to be congruent with our General Plan and mission as a semi-rural community.
----------Forwarded message ----------
From: sharon yarber <momofyago @gmail .com>
Date: Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:04 PM
Subject: Sunnyside Ridge trail
To: andyw@rpvca.gov, Lauren Ramezani <Laurenr@ rovca.gov>, Doug Willmore <dwillmore@ rpvca.gov>,
mtlu·one@rpvca.gov
Please tell me what staff considers the "essential elements" for this project? If staff recommendation is to be
adopted, Council will "direct staff to modify the project "without affecting the essential elements". In order for
staff to follow its recommended course of action, there must be a predetermined set of "essential elements" in
order to be sure they are not adversely affect by the redesign.
So what are they? I need to know by noon tomorrow.
Sharon Yarber
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Andy Winje
Tuesday, September 15, 2015 3:00 PM
Lenee Bilski; SunshineRPV@aol.com
CC; Doug Willmore; Lauren Ramezani; Michael Throne
RE: CC item H Sunnyside Ridge trail segment
Ms. Bliski and Sunshine -Thank you for your messages and your correction. I agree that the staff report's description of
the trail's easement is in error. While the project impacts two properties and passes between two properties in one
section, the easement actually traverses only one. The mistake was mine.
Andy Winje
310-544-5249
***IMPORTANT UPDATE***
WE ARE IN PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. PLEASE CHANGE MY EMAIL
ADDRESS TO ANDYW@RPVCA.GOV IN YOUR CONTACT LIST.
From: Lenee Bilski [mailto:leneebilski@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 2:42 PM
To: Andy Winje <AndyW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: CC item H Sunnyside Ridge trail segment
typo prevented delivery
From: leneebilski@hotmail.com
To: cc@rpvca .gov
CC: laurenr@rpvca.gov; dwillmore@rpvca.gov; michaelt@rpvca.gov; andyw@rpvca.com
Subject: CC item H Sunnyside Ridge trail segment
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:36:17 -0700
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
I have read the Staff Report and the correspondence on this item.
This is very disconcerting. I am very disappointed with the continuous delays that have prevented completion
of this trail segment since it was " lost" when the Public Works drain project obliterated it. There needs to be
better communication/coordination between departments which would have prevented this loss. We need
this trail connection.
The announcement of this agenda item states "The staff report has the full details". Oh really?
Staff Report states: "The Sunnyside Trail Segment is located within a recorded trail easement that traverses
two privately-owned lots [? I thought there was one private lot], which are currently developed with single-
family residences, one of which was formally [should be "formerly"] part of the old Narbonne right-of-way. "
1 H
So which is the second private lot?
Why does Staff refer numerous times to "the essential elements" without ever stating/ listing them? Why
isn't Ron Dragoo still in charge of this "high priority" (report pg. 3) Public Works project? He knows the
details of this long saga.
What does Staff consider "the essential elements" to be for this project? Staff should have listed and defined
the "essential elements" in the July 2015 request for Bids as well as in this Report." Full Details"? I don't think
so. Where's the attachment showing the request for bids language? Why was our engineer's estimate not
even close to the contractors' bids?
What "essential elements" were contractors given? I'd like to know and the City Council should have been
informed. So much for transparency!
How can the contractors clarify their bids without a specific definition of the work to be done??? What
possible "constraints and objectives" does staff know about but doesn't share with the Council & public???
It is shameful that this trail segment project has been dangling around for OVER TEN YEARS without getting
accomplished. We don't need further studies or modifications. The Council, the public and the contractors
need the definition of "essential elements" of the work to be done.
Keep it simple!!! Please get the trail segment completed in the simplest way possible as noted in the
correspondence from other residents. I agree with them. No more studies or re-designs. It seems that Staff
does not want this project. I wonder why not?
Please vote to get the elements defined and to get the project to MOVE! Thank you.
Ever vigilant,
Lenee Bilski
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Andy Winje
Tuesday, September 15, 2015 8:43 AM
Teresa Takaoka; Nathan Zweizig
FW: Sunnyside Ridge trail
Here's (more) late correspondence for Sunnyside Ridge item
Andy Winje
310-544-5249
***IMPORTANT UPDATE***
WE ARE IN PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. PLEASE CHANGE MY EMAIL
ADDRESS TO ANDYW@RPVCA.GOV IN YOUR CONTACT LIST.
From: sharon yarber [mailto:momofyago@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:04 PM
To: Andy Winje <AndyW@rpvca.gov>; Lauren Ramezani <LaurenR@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore
<DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; mthrone@rpvca.gov
Subject: Sunnyside Ridge trail
Please tell me what staff considers the "essential elements" for this project? If staff recommendation is to be
adopted, Council will "direct staff to modify the project "without affecting the essential elements". In order for
staff to follow its recommended course of action, there must be a predetermined set of "essential elements" in
order to be sure they are not adversely affect by the redesign.
So what are they? I need to know by noon tomorrow.
Sharon Yarber
1 H
CITY OF Rt\NCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, September 15, 2015 City Council meeting:
Item No.
F
H
Description of Material
Memorandum from Senior Administrative Analyst Fox
Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst
Ramezani and Sharon Yarber; Emails from: Sunshine;
Madeline Ryan
Respectfully submitted,
~
Carla Morreale ~.
W:IAGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150915 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
KIT FOX, AICP, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANAL YSTi!'
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 ~
LATE CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING ASSEMBLY BILL
NO. 718 (AGENDA ITEM 'F')
Prior to its September 11th action deadline, the State Senate placed Assembly Bill No. 718
(AB 718) in its inactive file, making it a 2-year bill that is expected to return in the next
legislative session. The League of California Cities still opposes this bill, and asks the
City Council to still send the draft opposition letter. A slightly revised version of the letter
is attached. Staff will continue to monitor and report to the City Council regarding future
action on AB 718.
Attachments:
Revised draft letter opposing AB 718 (Chu) (page 2)
M :\Legislative lssues\AB 718 (Chu)\2015091 S_CC_LateCorrespondence .docx
F
September 15, 2015
The Honorable Ben Hueso
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room 4035
Sacramento, CA 95 814
Via FAX: (916) 651-4940
AB 718 (Chu)-Removal of Regulatory Authority: Vehicles Used For Human Habitation
Notice of Opposition
Dear Senator Hueso:
On behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, I write to inform of our opposition to AB 718, which would
prohibit local agencies from enforcing laws and ordinances, or otherwise subject to civil or criminal
penalties, the act of people sleeping or resting in a lawfully parked motor vehicle.
While a vehicle may be "lawfully parked" in a residential neighborhood or in the parking lot of a business,
that does not mean that it is acceptable to have people live there. The issues raised by AB 718 are less
about parking, and more about the use of vehicles for human habitation, including sleeping and "resting"
in front of existing homes and businesses.
City parking locations whether on public or private property -other than campgrounds -were never
intended or designed for residential occupancy. Such uses raise major issues of sanitation as well as the
ability ofresidents to feel secure in their homes and enable the conduct of business activity.
This measure should be rejected. Cities work hard to balance all of the needs of their communities. It is
simply not appropriate for the Legislature to attempt to remove local government authority to appropriately
protect the public health, safety and welfare of their residents from issues that arise when people live outside
of campgrounds in cars and trucks parked on public and private property. These are not easy issues to deal
with, but they cannot responsibly be ignored.
What is most needed to combat homelessness is funding for affordable housing and emergency shelters.
There are several major pending measures that can help restore funds for affordable housing; we encourage
legislators to support additional funding for affordable housing and homeless solutions
As current proposed, AB 718 would effectively invalidate key provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code regarding the use of vehicles as dwelling units. Fmthermore, since we are a coastal
community, we face both tremendous demand for public parking in the coastal zone and tremendous
difficulty in imposing new parking restrictions in order to maintain both the availability of coastal-zone
parking and the public health, safety and welfare of the City's resident and visitors.
Because this measure would undermine local authority to appropriately protect the public health, safety and
welfare of our residents, we must oppose AB 718.
Sincerely,
Jim Knight
Mayor
cc: Assembly Member Kansen Chu
Assembly Member David Hadley
Senator Ben Allen
Jeff Kiernan, Los Angeles Regional Public Affairs Manager (via email)
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, mdesmond @cacities .org
From: Lauren Ramezani
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:37 AM
sharon yarber To:
Cc:
Subject:
CC; Teresa Takaoka; Michael Throne; Andy Winje; Ron Dragoo
FW: September 15 Sunnyside Ridge Trail City Council Item
BeadorBid.pdf; GRFCOBid.pdf; MinakoAmericaCorporationBid.pdf Attachments:
Sharon,
Thank you for your inquiry. Please see the information you requested.
Attached are the three bidder's proposals (sans bid bonds, agreements on labor code, etc.) for Sunnyside Ridge Trail
project. I believe this is what you were interested in seeing. ("May I please get a copy of the bid proposal
request/ad that the City put out as well as copies of the bids that were submitted?")
Additionally, the bid documents that were advertised can be found on the City's website using the following steps.
1. Navigate to www.rpvca.gov
2. In the blue bar just beneath the City's name and logo, select "Community"
3. Beneath "Rancho Palos Verdes Community", select "Business Resources"
4. In the blue area to the left of the page, select "Bid Opportunities"
5. Click the checkbox next to "Show Closed/Awarded/Cancelled Bids:"
6. After the screen refreshes, the project can be seen at the bottom (currently) of the list. Select it.
7. The various Bid Documents are available as links beneath the project information presented on the screen. The
Proposal pages begin on page 8 of the "Specifications" document.
Thanks .
Lauren Ramezani
Sr. Administrative Analyst-Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
**************************************************************************
From: sharon yarber [mailto:momofyago@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 11:52 AM
To: Lauren Ramezani <LaurenR@rpvca .g ov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca .gov>
Subject: Re: September 15 Sunnyside Ridge Trail City Council Item
Dear Council Members and Lauren,
Unfortunately, I am not the least bit surprised that the bids exceed the budget. That has always been my
concern. May I please get a copy of the bid proposal request/ad that the City put out as well as copies of the bids
that were submitted? If the request did not ask the contractors to separately bid the components, and it certainly
appears that that is the case, why not? That is such an obviously reasonable and intelligent way to request a bid.
1 H
Why take an all or nothing approach? And how could the highly paid consultant be so off in his estimate of
what it would cost that we are now "surprised" at the high bids? Obviously whoever guesstimated what the cost
would be is out of touch with reality and not qualified to render cost estimate opinions.
Had the bid been done properly we would be in a position to now select what elements are wanted vs. needed
and move forward. Staffs recommendation to reject the bids and start the process over is unacceptable. There is
no need for unnecessary further delay or spending more money on KOA's fees to redo the design. We do not
need any more design consultation. We need to ask these contractors to clarify their bids to break them out so
we can see what each component costs. There is no need to out of hand fully reject them. Just ask them to revise
and resubmit. Then there will be no 4 week delay (which will end up being three months or more, based on past
experience).
In my opinion as a hiker and an equestrian, ALL that is needed to make this trail usable again is to restore the
integrity of the trailhead from the street. Period. We do not need a bridge, we do not need grading to be done,
we do not need cut and manicured trails of DG, we do not need railroad ties or anything else other than access
to the property behind the Padatori home. I have hiked the property and know that any decent trail horse would
have no trouble going down and back up the canyon. We will cut our own switchbacks (they are already there,
frankly, just in need of use!). All we need is the first portion of the trailhead fixed.
We are not required to make every trail less challenging than it naturally is. This canyon trail is for fit hikers,
not beginners. There is nothing wrong with that. We have plenty of other trails throughout the City that offer an
array of levels of difficulty.
Please reject staff proposal, ask staff to confer with the contractors who submitted bids to obtain a breakdown of
their bids and bring this back to the next council meeting with more meaningful information with which to
make an informed decision sooner rather than later.
Sincerely,
Sharon Yarber
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Lauren Ramezani <LamenR@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon,
Attached please find the link to the staff report regarding the Sunnyside Ridge Trail Segment
Project. The item is going before the City Council on Tuesday September 15th:
http://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=S&event id=17&meta id=17637
In summary, the bids received were significantly over the engineer's estimate and the approved
project budget (-$200,000 over). Therefore staff's recommendations is to:
Recommendation: 1) Reject all bids received for the Sunnyside Ridge Trail Segment Project; and,
2) Direct Staff to modify the scope of work without impacting essential elements of the project, with a
goal of decreasing the construction cost, and re-advertise the project as soon as possible.
The staff report has the full details . Please let me know if you have any questions or need
clarification.
Thanks.
2
Lauren Ramezani
Sr. Administrative Analyst-Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5245
L_aurenr@rpvca.gov
www.mvca.gov
****The City has a new web and email domain. I have a new email address. Please update your records.
Thanks*****
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
MEMO from SUNSHINE
SunshineRPV@aol.com
Sunday, September 13, 2015 6:26 PM
cc
Doug Willmore; Michael Throne; Andy Winje
September 15, 2015 RPV City Council Item H. Sunnyside trail segment
TO: RPV City Council. Copy to City Manager and interested parties
RE: September 15, 2015 RPV City Council Item H. Sunnyside trail segment
According to the Staff Report, Staff has decided to ignore the sage old advice ... Do not change horses in
midstream. With his lack of "institutional knowledge", has Andy Winje been selected to oversee the demise of
this project? The whole affair has had "planned to fail" written all over it since the first grant application.
Apparently only the City Council can rein in this waste of money and still restore this trail connection. It all
started with a Staff error and the solution has grown in complexity ever since. The current Staff
Recommendation lacks a definition of what are the essential elements. I see only four with the possible fifth
being the bridge which may or may not be essential for complying with the grant conditions.
1. Mitigate the substandard storm water runoff from the new hardscape at 24 77 Sunnyside Ridge Road which
flows across the historic trail.
2. Remove and kill the pepper tree which is in the easement.
3. Remove the portion of the not-permitted garden wall which is in the easement.
4. Install a properly engineered retaining wall to support a TYPE 5 trail across the pinch-point in the easement
without requiring a balcony railing on the permitted wall by the driveway at 2477 Sunnyside Ridge Road.
Once the obstruction at the pinch-point is mitigated, the trail the rest of the way across Greenwood Canyon will
reappear as the social trail it had been for decades. It was thoughtless of the Sunnyside Ridge Storm Drain
Project to damage the route of the Eagle Scout Project trail. No work on the City 's part is required for the trail
in the canyon. Doing no work in the canyon would substantially reduce the City's liability for public use of this
easement.
Excuse me. But, which is the second privately-owned lot which this easement traverses? This trail has always
been only on the Narbonne Right of Way. Could it be that the bids came in so high because Staff is so confused
about the "nuances" of the project? The bidders pretty consistently covered their asses when treading in muddy
water. Numbers don't'lie.
If this project is considered a high priority by the Public Works Department, I now understand why the normal
priority infrastructure maintenance is not getting done. YEA! KOA is committed to providing services for re-
scoping and re-design at no additional cost. I'll bet they covered their asses in their original quote knowing full
well that public input is to be ignored and this sort of re-bid is normal.
Choose a cliche: Push comes to shove. Or, the : has hit the fan. The public objected to the addition of
$165K to the project funding. Adding another $270K is just plain absurd. What I see coming is Staff
1 H.
manipulation so that this grant is lost. The clock is ticking. OK, reject the bids. It all comes down to those
essential elements. Staff is withholding this information and asking that the project be delayed, again.
I have no clue as to how a City Council is supposed to deal with such a situation. This is neither "oversight"
nor "micromanaging". Staffs recommendation is that you grant them permission to take another spin on the
merry-go-round. Please do not do that.
Give them four weeks to come back with a new bid package which includes only the four essential elements
which are listed above plus whatever Staff, in their infinite wisdom, thinks they need to say to the LA County
Staff to keep this grant in play.
All the public really wants is the trail connection back.
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Madeline Ryan < pvpasofino@yahoo.com >
Monday, September 14, 2015 11:46 AM
Lauren Ramezani; CC
Sunnyside Ridge Trail Bids
Hello Mayor and Councilmembers
It is disappointing that bids for the reconstruction of Sunnyside Ridge came in over
budget. However, perhaps it is a better thing to reject all bids and re-bid this project
using Add Alternates.
In hindsight, solicitation of bids for this project should not have been on a Lump Sum
basis. (I haven't seen the bid proposals, so I cannot determine if bids were lump sum
based or unit priced). I assume the bid proposals and costs breakdown will be made
available to City Council and this question will be answered.
There are 4 elements to this project and each element should have been considered as
an Add Alternate.
The question to CC is, 'What is most needed that available funds would/could
achieve?" I would submit the following:
Base Bid -Construct Trail Head for +/-120' from Sunnyside (Area 2) to the canyon
(Area 1).
Add Alt #1 -Construct Area 1 (switchbacks) to proposed Bridge area.
Add Alt #2 -Construct Bridge.
Add Alt #3-Construct trail to Palos Verdes Drive East.
I would not support an infusion of over $200,000 from the General Fund, but rather
support re-bidding this project, perhaps a scaled back version.
Thank you.
Madeline Ryan
PVDrive East
"May the Trails be with you ... " Madeline
1 H.