20170801 Late CorrespondenceComments by R. Gene Dewey
To RPV City Council on Aug 1, 2017 regarding the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Good evening Mayor Campbell and city council members. My name is Gene Dewey, I am a resident of
Ladera Linda and the past president of the Ladera Linda HOA for fiscal year 2016-2017, During the past
fiscal year our neighborhood has been concerned and involved with the LL Park Master planning
process. Early on in the process after a meeting with the P & R department we held an e-mail survey
with three questions. Keep LL Park as is, New Park or Don't know. Out of thirty responses, twenty seven
were in favor of keeping it as is, with three opting for a new park. At a city council meeting on October
18, 2016 a number of our residents showed up to speak with divergent views on what they would like to
see. Mickey Rodich the current president of the LLHOA suggested we hold a special meeting to see if we
could reach a consensus on the matter.
The first special meeting since the incorporation of the LLHOA in 1964 was held on December 5, 2016
with over fifty residents of LL, nine from Seaview and two from Mediterranea in attendance, plus email
proxies from another thirty residents. All of the attendees except a couple along with the 30 proxy
votes agreed to submit our consensus recommendation to P & Rand the City Council agreeing that a
new low profile facility was the favored choice. A few residents suggested an amendment to the motion
to incorporate into our document a request for a cost estimate to rehab a portion of the present facility.
There were concerns and disagreements as to how many parking spaces, should be there, view issues
for Seaview residents who were concerned about park users being able to look directly into their back
yards if the shrubbery along the fence is removed. There were concerns about the increased activity
and noise this facility will bring to our neighborhood along with the increase in crime. During the past
couple of weeks we have had numerous break-ins of vehicles and residences in our neighborhood and in
the Sea View area ,as a result our residents are very concerned and some of the elderly residents are
scared.
The proposal that is presented for the new LL Park captures the wishes of the majority of our residents.
There are parking issue s, view issues and security issues that need to be addressed going forward, but
we thank the City Council for instructing the P & R dept that" less is more " and we also thank P & R for
listening to our concerns and suggestions.
Thank You
1\
AGENDA ITEM: '+
REC ~;\~M De;;r-l ~
ANO MADE PART OF THE~w AT THE
COUNCIL MEETING OF: . I \I
of*fillCI 01' THI CITV Cl.•RK
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Matt Waters
Tuesday, August 01, 2017 4:16 PM
CityClerk; Teresa Takaoka
Cory Linder; Kelly Krusee
FW: Ladera Linda renovation timeline
Late correspondence for LL item tonight
Thanks,
Matt
From: Matt Waters
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 4:14 PM
To: Irene Almeida <irenealmeidalascandalistas@gmail.com>; Kelly Krusee <kkrusee@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Mona Dill <MonaD@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda renovation timeline
Hi Irene,
There is no definite date yet for the demolition and renovation of Ladera Linda. The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council is
considering the Ladera Linda Master Plan tonight. Kelly is correct that, even if approved tonight, you would have
significant notice before you would have to move your stored items and look for another meeting place. An exact time
frame is hard to guess, but a year at the least is likely. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or
concerns. We will be communicating with you as this process develops.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattw@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f
From: Irene Almeida [mailto:irenealmeidalascandalistas@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 11:23 AM
To: Kelly Krusee <kkrusee@rpvca.gov>
1 1.
Cc: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Mona Dill <MonaD@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Ladera Linda renovation timeline
Hi Kelly,
Thank you for your response and for forwarding my question to Matt. I look forward to his reply.
Best,
Irene
On Tue, Aug l, 2017 at 11: 12 AM Kelly Krusee <kkrusee@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Ms. Almeida,
Thank you for reaching out about your needs for Las Candalistas and planning at Ladera Linda. My understanding is the
possible renovation of Ladera Linda is a few years away.
I am copying Matt Waters from the Recreation & Parks Department at the City with your inquiry; he will be able to
provide more detail to assist you and Las Candalistas as you plan for the next fiscal year.
Respectfully,
Kelly Krusee
Recreation Specialist, Community Events & Sports
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310.544.5364
From: Irene Almeida [mailto:irenealmeidalascandalistas@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 10:04 AM
To: Kelly Krusee <kkrusee@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda renovation timeline
Hello,
2
My name is Irene Almeida and I am the President of Las Candalistas. I am reaching out to you because I sent
an email to Mona Dill and received an automated reply that Mona is out of town.
Las Candalistas currently uses one of the rooms at Ladera Linda for storage and we also hold our monthly
meetings at the site as well. We are working on our budget for the upcoming year and are trying to determine
when we will need to find an alternative storage unit due to the demolition for renovation at Ladera Linda.
Is there a definite date planned that would require us to relocate from the storage room that you know of?
I look forward to your reply.
Than you.
Irene Almeida
Las Candalistas President
3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
AUGUST 1, 2017
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No.
J
1
3
4
Description of Material
Email from Mickey Radich
Email exchange between Deputy Director of Community
Development Kim and Jeremy Davies; Email from Jim Knight
Email from Mickey Radich (See Item J)
Email exchange between City Manager Willmore and Mickey
Radich; Letter from Marty Foster
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, July 31, 2017**.
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20170801 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Consent Calendar Item # J:
Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Tuesday, August 01, 2017 1:19 PM
cc
City Council Meeting August 1, 2017
I think this item should be an Agenda item. This subject needs further public discussion. The hourly rates are very
high. I think there there should be better comparisons shown to the CC.
Agenda Item# 3:
As brought up in the last meeting on this subject, I feel that CC is giving the Staff cart blanche to do whatever they
want. As I said at the last CC meeting, Staff should NOT be able to change the scope of the agreement as they wish. I
am concerned for the businesses in RPV. Their confidential information should not be accessible to staff. We must
protect our local businesses because there is a possibility that confidential information can be leaked. The presentation
made to the CC at the last meeting was very incomplete. The majority of the CC did not even know that we were
presently collecting this sales/use tax. Staff did not present all of the comparison information. I find it hard to see
where we collected $75,000 collected the past 3 years. I think that last year we collected around $13,000 from this
program so then we collected over $30,000 for each of the 2 previous years??.
The other thing that concerns me is that the City Attorney is now determining which vendors to use. As he said at
the last CC meeting that all 30 of the small cities that his firm represents use this same vendor makes me very
suspicious. He can now make it 31. Doesn't that strike you as being suspicious?? Could there be any collusion there??
I feel that the CC should only agree to continue with the present degree of collection and not give Staff the right to
change and/or expand the scope of the contract. We must protect the confidential information for all of RPV
businesses.
1
From : So Kim
Sent:
To:
Monday, July 31, 2017 6:04 PM
Nathan Zwei z ig
Subject: FW: ZON2017-00157 Public Hearing June 6,2017
Late correspondence for 8/1/2017 CC Mtg. Item No. 1.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
Cit y of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rp vca .go v
(310) 544-5222
From: So Kim
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 6:04 PM
To: 'Jeremy Davies '
Cc: Brian Campbell <BrianC@rpvca .gov>; Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; Anthony Misetich
<AnthonyM@rpvca .gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; 'Cassie Jones'
<CassieJ@aol.com>; 'Jim Knight' <knightjim33@gmail.com>; 'Lewis Enstedt' <lewisenstedt@hotmail.com >; 'Blair Van Buren'
<blairvanburen@gmail.com>; 'robert.cumby' <robert.cumby@cox.net>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov>
Subject: FW : ZON2017 -00157 Public Hearing June 6,2017
Hi Mr. Davies,
Thank you for your email. Please see the email chain below. You sent me an email with a list of questions on June 11th, which I
responded in red on June 12th . I thought these were questions you wanted me to answer and not necessarily included as
attachments to the report. In any case, the entire City Council was copied on that email chain so they are aware of the content .
This email will be included on record as part of late correspondence.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
Cit y of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rp vc a.g ov
{310) 544-5222
From: Jeremy Davies [mailto:jdavies@kuboaa .com ]
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 5:42 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca .gov>
Cc: Brian Campbell <BrianC@rpvca.gov >; Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov >; Anthony Misetich
<AnthonyM@rpvca.gov >; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov >; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov >; Cassie Jones
<CassieJ@aol.com >; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com > <knightjim33@gmail.com >; Lewis Enstedt
<lewisenstedt@hotmail.com >; Blair Van Buren <blairvanburen@gmail.com >; robert.cumby <robert.cumby@cox.net>
Subject: 48 Cinnamon City Hearing August 1
Dear Ms Kim
I note that you have attached "all the public comments on the abov e matter" in your e-mail of July 2 8. However , ml.
e-mail to you of June 11 , 2 017 is mi ss ing .
1 •
You have asserted that the Council should see the City Geologist's report on the above property at the time of the
hearing. The neighbors have seen no sign of boring equipment or other equipment necessary to carry out out a
professional geologist's report on land stability etc. The City's checklist on this property states that for an "exclusion
to be processed it must be shown that the mitigated site configuration will have a factor of safety of 1.5 as required by
15.18.090 Section 107a.3 of the RPV Municipal Code". The Council should be aware that if this has not been carried
out that they are acting in contravention of established City Code. Jim Knight in his recent letter to you and the City
also raises the issue of the need for proven stability with factor of 1.5. Please ensure that Council has reviewed
geologist evidence of stability before considering the proposed code changes for this property.
Regards
Jeremy Davies
From: Jeremy Davies [mailto:jdavies@kuboaa.com ]
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 8:25 AM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov >
Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov >; Lewis Enstedt <lewisenstedt@hotmail.com >; Cassie Jones <CassieJ@aol.com >;
robert.cumby <robert.cumby@cox.net >; Dennis Gardner <dennisggardner@me .com >; joanmc8921@aol.com ; Monika Bauer
<rmbst5@msn .com >; Blair Van Buren <blairvanburen@gmail.com >; Brian Campbell <BrianC@rpvca .gov >; Jerry Duhovic
<Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca .gov >; Anthony Misetich <AnthonyM@rpvca .gov>; Ken Dyda
<Ken. Dyd a@rpvca.gov >
Subject: Re: ZON2017-00157 Public Hearing June 6,2017
Ms Kim
You are up early! Many thanks for your timely responses to my questions.
Regards
Jeremy Davies
PS no more questions!
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 8:04 AM, So Kim <So K@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Good Morning Mr. Davies,
Please see my responses to your question s below.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca .gov
(310) 544-5222
2
From: Jeremy Davies [mailto:jdavies@kuboaa.com ]
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2017 3:52 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov >
Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov >; Lewis Enstedt <lewisenstedt@hotmail.com >; Cassie Jones <CassieJ@aol.com >;
robert.cumby <robert.cumby@cox.net >; Dennis Gardner <dennisggardner@me .com >; joanmc8921@aol.com ; Monika Bauer
<rmbstS@msn .com >; Blair Van Buren <blairvanburen@gmail.com >; Brian Campbell <BrianC@rpvca.gov >; Jerry Duhovic
<Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca .gov >; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov >; Anthony Misetich <AnthonyM@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda
<Ken .Dyda@rpvca.gov >
Subject: ZON2017-00157 Public Hearing June 6,2017
Dear Ms Kim ,
Following the public hearing I submitted certain questions to you to which you kindly replied in your e-mail of June
7 , 2017. You also suggested that If I had any additional questions or concerns I should contact you. My apo lo gies but
I have a few more based on the Revised Geotechnical Report Response Checklist completed by Kling Consulting
Group Inc , in August 2016 that you sent me. Presumably Kling compiled this checklist on behalf of the City (as City
Geologist)? Yes .
1) The neighbors to the property at 48 Cinnamon have seen no presence of any boring equipment or other equipment
that would be needed to carry out a professional geologist's report on land stability etc. Does the geologist's report
contain conclusions on land stability supported by adequate profession testing evidence? Please explain the
procedures used regarding land stability testing. For the purposes of P lanning Review, a preliminary geotechnical
report is required. A more detailed report will be required during the plan check process . Having said that, I'm not
sure to what extend the applicant is required to submit for the preliminary report. Please feel free to visit our office
and look at the report. If you have detailed questions after reviewing the report , I can put you in contact with Kling .
2) The City's checklist on this property states that "for an exclusion to be processed it must be demonstrated that the
final mitigated site configuration will have a factor of safety of 1.5 as required by 15 .18.090 Section 107 A.3 of the
RPV Municipal Code." If this has not been carried out The Council should be aware that if it approves planning for
this property that again they are acting against established City Code with the governance and integrity questions that
go along with any such decision. You are correct in that an exclusion request requires a factor of safety of 1.5. The
City 's Landslide Moratorium Exclusion process is for applicants requesting that their property be excluded from the
moratorium. The proposed project at 48 Cinnamon is not a request to be excluded from the moratorium.
3) You have confirmed that Council should see the City Geologist's report on this property at the time of the
hearing. Does this mean that there will be an additional public hearing? Yes , I responded that the applicant's
submitted geotechnical reports will be attached to a future hearing . There will be a subsequent hearing by the City
Council to consider an appeal by a neighbor requesting that the Planning Commission 's approval of the residential
development at 48 Cinnamon be overturned.
Regards
Jeremy Davies
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Council members,
Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>
Tuesday, August 01, 2017 11:48 AM
cc
Exception Category U
This letter is in addition to the letter dated July 29, 2017 I sent to you regarding Exception Category U. I
apologize for this late response on your agenda item tonight but I just got back for the hospital and noticed
an e-mail from City Planner in which she listed answers to public questions regarding the city's position on
spot zoning. That response only addresses the base zone of R2. I think the City attorney needs to let the
public know why the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance, which overlays the R2 Zoning, is not subject to spot
zoning. Anytime the government enforces regulations, whether it be zoning, overlay regulations,General
Plan or Municipal ordinance and controls the use of multiple parcels of land through those governing
documents, it is subject to potential spot zoning.
Overlay regulations, such as the Moratorium Ordinance, is a regulatory tool that creates a special zoning overlay regulation which is placed over the
existing base zone, which in this case is R2, and identifies special provisions in addition to those in the underlying base zone.
The defining characteristic of spot zoning is the narrowness and unjustified nature of the benefit to the particular property owner over
property owners within that district or zoning which is enforced by regulations set up by the jurisdictional authority and does not serve a
general public good.
This is not a criticism of City Planners, City Attorney, or Council. I raise this issue because I care about the City and I care about you
as Council members being asked to pass a resolution before being fully vetted on this issue so as not to have any future adversarial
legal consequences. In addition, the City Attorney needs to answer the questions raised in this and other letters to you and the public.
Thank you for your service,
Jim Knight
from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S@ 6.
1 /
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Doug Willmore
Tuesday, August 01, 2017 2:47 PM
Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; CC
RE: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan.
I have corrected the typos. Apologize for the duplicate emails.
From: Doug Willmore
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 2:42 PM
To: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan.
Hi Mickey,
I don't have enough time right now to address all of your issues, but I did want to quickly address your points 4 and 5.
Regarding P3's, why would you not support investigating to find out what the best arrangement is for the City? It would make
no sense to do a P3 if it is not in the City's best interest, but from my direct experience, many of them are. I did three P3's in
Salt Lake County and they saved the County a substantial amount of money. In this case, if they don't save RPV money, then
don't pursue it. Every contractor who bids on a project wants to maximize their return on investment. However, in many
instances, a private contractor that is not contracting with a public agency does not have to use union wages on their project. If
they contract with us to do the project, they would have to pay prevailing wage. In my experience, this, alone, can save as
much as 20% of the cost on the project. Why does it hurt to investigate the prospect of a P3 given that it doesn't cost us
anything to investigate it?
Regarding the overall cost, even though the estimate from Richard Fisher is over $7.6M, I think it is way high. They are being
generous, which is what they do in their phase. Terry Rodrigue (our acting PW Director who is in the private sector) and I have
talked to construction estimators who have told us it is high -for the building and for the landscaping. We believe the bids on
detailed plans would come in much less than Richard Fisher's estimate. In addition, a P3 is likely to lead to additional savings
(by not being required to adhere to prevailing wage). And, when you add in using $7501< in Quimby funds, that's how you end
up with a payment as low as $200K. You don't know until the constructions plans are done and you get estimates and value
engineer the project, but, in my experience you could get there or close to it.
From: Mickey Radich [mailto:mfckeyrodich@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 12:18 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan.
I am not able to attend the City Council Meeting tonight, so I am sending this email to express my concerns and my
opinions. I thought there was to be another Public Meeting prior to the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan being
presented to the City Council. Since this presentation is pretty much identical to the consensus obtained after the last
Public Meeting in April, except for a few minor changes, another meeting was not necessary. The only basic changes
were the relocation of the basketball courts, butterfly garden and the children's playgrounds. I also agree with the
addition of the 28 additional parking places along Forrestal. As staff has recommended, I feel that there should be two
gates on Forrestal; the existing one plus one at the end of the 28 parking places. This will allow for better control of
the area beyond the gates. The Staff and the Architects did a very good job of listening to our concerns while arriving
at their final recommendations.
Some of my items of concern are:
1) You mention a turnaround for horse trailers. Ladera Linda in NOT a horse area. The turnaround is meant to be
for School buses transporting school children to
1
If•
Ladera Linda for the Discovery Center and trail access.
2) I am always concerned with Grants. I think that the City Council should thoroughly review any conditions
attached to these Grants because many Grants
contain onerous conditions that would not serve us well.
3) The building design shown in the current proposal is the same as the one shown in the 2 previous options. We
all agreed that the building should have smooth exterior surfaces and not full of nooks and crannies for security
reasons.
4) I am not in favor of P3 financing. Companies that do P3 financing are interested in maximizing their return on
their investment. Staff recommendation uses an
example of $200,000 per year payment for 30 years and then we get a free title. $200,000 per year times 30
years is $6,000,000 however the estimated cost
is over $7,600,000. Am I missing something?
5) The estimates show approximately $4,200,000 for the building and$ 3,400,000 for the landscaping etc. I think
the landscaping cost is high.
Another important aspect is our concern safety. Our neighborhood is experiencing a large uptick in burglaries. Just
last week, one resident that borders
Ladera experienced a break in to their home. A rear window was broken and the home was ransacked. The resident
has a camera security system for their home and got a picture of the suspect approaching their front door. An alert
neighbor took a picture of the suspects car and copied 6 digits of their license plate. They reported the break in to the
Sheriff and hope they have enough information to apprehend the suspects.
Last but not least I want to express our concern over the traffic at PVDS & Forrestal due to soccer games.
Something has to be done to improve that intersection.
2
32451 Searaven Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
California, 90275
August 1, 2017
Dear Mayor Campbell and City Council Members,
Yesterday, we received an email advising us of the public safety meeting at
Hesse Park tonight. It looks to be a valuable talk. However, it does conflict with a
meeting tonight regarding the city's design for the Ladera Linda Community
Center.
Since, we may not be able to attend either I wanted to offer thoughts for the plan
as seen on the city website.
As discussed in the last meeting regarding the center, I did ask if the plan was
funded. Apparently not. I also asked if the plan had any budgetary guidelines.
Again, apparently not. In our personal decision making we assess our means
first. Then, we look at our needs and wants. In that order. The lack of fiduciary
responsibility regarding this process is of grave concern to the RPV taxpayer.
The current plan calls for 93 added parking spots. The surrounding community
can walk to the center. The city residents the center serves may drive but rarely if
ever require that kind of parking capacity. This capacity seems to cater to those
not from our community. Speakers, surveys, letters all express safety concerns
related to bringing folks into the neighborhood who may not be well intentioned.
On 7/28/17 another robbery took place adjacent to LL center. This is becoming
an all too frequent occurrence.
When CC met with residents this spring, I spoke directly to the need to preserve
foliage at the center. As chair of the ad hoc committee that first worked with the
city to acquire LL community center, I can attest that the primary purpose of
neighborhood interest in the site related to preserving green space in our
surroundings. There are many view restrictions residents must conform to
regarding plantings and these restrictions preserve views for homeowners. At the
center the primary desire is for that greenery. The current plan appears to call for
cutting down shrubbery and trees at the southern fence to enhance the view.
Again this seems responsive to desires of those not from our city.
If wished I am happy to forward the results of a survey I conducted some time
ago when this discussion began.
The greatest concerns expressed are as follows:
Speeding on Forrestal (47%)
Trash on Forrestal and the community center (56%)
Left turn on PVDS (63%)
Neighborhood security (74%)
Many thanks for your time and attention, in your capacity to serve RPV residents.
Best wishes
Marty Foster
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JULY 31, 2017
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, August 1, 2017 City Council meeting:
Item No.
J
K
1
4
Description of Material
Attachment A (lnterwest Consulting Group Agreement)
Updated Attachment A, Exhibit "C", Paragraph "V"
Email exchange between Deputy Director of Community
Development Kim and Jim Knight; Email from Cassie Jones
Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Waters and
Lawrence Williams; Email exchange between Director of Recreation
& Parks Linder and Herb Stark; Email exchange between Senior
Administrative Analyst Waters and Robert and Donna Lauck; Email
exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Waters and
Madeline Ryan; Emails from: Sunshine; Ginette Aelony; Herb Stark;
Gary Randall
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20170801 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
By and Between
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
and
INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP
ITEM J
A-1
AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND
INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP
THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (herein "Agreement") is made and
entered into this 1st day of August, 201 7 by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a
California municipal corporation ("City") and Interwest Consulting Group, a California
corporation ("Consultant"). City and Consultant may be referred to, individually or collectively,
as "Party" or "Parties."
RECITALS
A. City has sought, by issuance of a Request for Proposals or Invitation for Bids, the
performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement.
B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal or bid for the performance of the
services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement, was selected by the
City to perform those services.
C. Pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' Municipal Code, City has authority
to enter into and execute this Agreement.
D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of
those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that
the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.
OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by
the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULT ANT
1.1 Scope of Services.
In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall
provide those services specified in the "Scope of Services" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the "services" or
"work" hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement, Consultant
represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to
properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and
professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated
herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability,
experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it shall
follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder
and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose intended. For
purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "highest professional standards" shall mean those
A-2
standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work under
similar circumstances.
1.2 Consultant's Proposal.
The Scope of Service shall include the Consultant's scope of work or bid which shall be
incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any
inconsistency between the terms of such proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this
Agreement shall govern.
1.3 Compliance with Law.
Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder
in accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and any
Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is
rendered.
1.4 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments.
Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals
as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement.
Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus
applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary
for the Consultant's performance of the services required by this Agreement, and shall
indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any
such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City
hereunder.
1.5 Familiarity with Work.
By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly
investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered
how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and
restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve
work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or
will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services
hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will
materially affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform
the City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant's risk until written instructions
are received from the Contract Officer.
1.6 Care of Work.
The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to
furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents,
plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be
responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City,
except such losses or damages as may be caused by City's own negligence.
- 2 -A-3 01203.0005/392135.1
1. 7 Further Responsibilities of Parties.
Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective
obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all
instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry
out the purposes of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible
for the service of the other.
1.8 Additional Services.
City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without
invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services
or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be
undertaken unless a written order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant,
incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the extra
work, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the
written approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to ten percent (10%) of
the Contract Sum or $25,000, whichever is less; or, in the time to perform of up to one hundred
eighty (180) days, may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increases, taken either
separately or cumulatively, must be approved by the City Council. It is expressly understood by
Consultant that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to services specifically set forth in
the Scope of Services. Consultant hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to
be provided pursuant to the Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than
Consultant anticipates and that Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation
therefor. City may in its sole and absolute discretion have similar work done by other contractors.
No claims for an increase in the Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the
procedures established in this Section are followed.
1.9 Special Requirements.
Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof
are set forth in the "Special Requirements" attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated
herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit "B" and any
other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit "B" shall govern.
ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.
2.1 Contract Sum.
Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the
amounts specified in the "Schedule of Compensation" attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and
incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for
actual expenses, shall not exceed Six Hundred and Three Thousand Dollars (the "Contract
Sum"), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1.8.
2.2 Method of Compensation.
The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon completion; (ii)
payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of the services, less
contract retention; (iii) payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant's rates as
- 3 -A-4 01203.0005/392135.1
specified in the Schedule of Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the
performance of sub tasks, (b) contract retention is maintained, and ( c) the Contract Sum is not
exceeded; or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation.
2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.
Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for
reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in
advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.5,
and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the
attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City.
Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If
Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant
shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings.
2.4 Invoices.
Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice for all work performed
and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by City's Director of
Finance. By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying
compliance with all provisions of the Agreement. The invoice shall detail charges for all
necessary and actual expenses by the following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel,
materials, equipment, supplies, and sub-contractor contracts. Sub-contractor charges shall also be
detailed by such categories. Consultant shall not invoice City for any duplicate services
performed by more than one person.
City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine
whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this
Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant
which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will use its best efforts to cause
Consultant to be paid within forty-five ( 45) days of receipt of Consultant's correct and
undisputed invoice; however, Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run
procedures, the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the
event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City
to Consultant for correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice
provided by the Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided
herein or any applicable law.
2.5 Waiver.
Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be
deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.
ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
3 .1 Time of Essence.
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
- 4 -A-5 01203.0005/392135. l
3 .2 Schedule of Performance.
Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a
written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in
the "Schedule of Performance" attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this
reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time period(s) specified in the
Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer but not exceeding
one hundred eighty (180) days cumulatively.
3.3 Force Majeure.
The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the
services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to
unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant,
including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather,
fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes,
wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant
shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in
writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of
delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when
and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer's
determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall
Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of
this Agreement, however caused, Consultant's sole remedy being extension of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section.
3.4 Term.
Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement
shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding two (2)
years from the date hereof, with an option for the City Manager to approve an extension of the
Agreement for one additional year, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance
(Exhibit "D").
ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK
4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant.
The following principals of Consultant ("Principals") are hereby designated as being the
principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the
work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:
01203.0005/392135. I
RonBeehmer
(Name)
Henry Huang
(Name)
- 5 -
Director of Building Safety Services
(Title)
Principal Engineer
(Title)
A-6
It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the
foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.
Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for
directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the
services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be
under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the
foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced
by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize
only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall make
every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant's staff and
subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement.
Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant's staff and subcontractors, if any,
assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any such
performance.
4.2 Status of Consultant.
Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation,
debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless
such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in
writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or
any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers,
employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant's officers, employees or
agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may
otherwise accrue to City's employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may
have to any such rights.
4.3 Contract Officer.
The Contract Officer shall be Ara Mihranian, or such other person as may be designated
by the City Manager. It shall be the Consultant's responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer
is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Consultant shall refer
any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified
herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer.
The Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in writing by the City Manager, to sign all
documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
4.4 Independent Consultant.
Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or
means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except
as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or
control of Consultant's employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing their number,
compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an
independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent
contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any
- 6 -A-7 01203.0005/392135. l
time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees
of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of
Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any joint enterprise
with Consultant.
4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.
The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and
employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore,
Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services
required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. In addition, neither this
Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or
encumbered voluntarily or by operation of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise,
without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the
transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty five percent
(25%) of the present ownership and/or control of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on
a cumulative basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy
proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No approved transfer shall release the Consultant or
any surety of Consultant of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City.
ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
5.1 Insurance Coverages.
The Consultant shall procure and maintain, at its sole cost and expense, in a form and
content satisfactory to City, during the entire term of this Agreement including any extension
thereof, the following policies of insurance which shall cover all elected and appointed officers,
employees and agents of City:
(a) Commercial General Liability Insurance (Occurrence Form CGOOOl or
equivalent). A policy of comprehensive general liability insurance written on a per occurrence
basis for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. The policy of insurance shall be in
an amount not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence or if a general aggregate limit is used, then
the general aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limit.
(b) Worker's Compensation Insurance. A policy of worker's compensation
insurance in such amount as will fully comply with the laws of the State of California and which
shall indemnify, insure and provide legal defense for the Consultant against any loss, claim or
damage arising from any injuries or occupational diseases occurring to any worker employed by
or any persons retained by the Consultant in the course of carrying out the work or services
contemplated in this Agreement.
(c) Automotive Insurance (Form CA 0001 (Ed 1/87) including "any auto" and
endorsement CA 0025 or equivalent). A policy of comprehensive automobile liability insurance
written on a per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage in an amount not less than
$1,000,000. Said policy shall include coverage for owned, non-owned, leased, hired cars and any
automobile.
( d) Professional Liability. Professional liability insurance appropriate to the
Consultant's profession. This coverage may be written on a "claims made" basis, and must
- 7 -A-8 01203.0005/392135.1
include coverage for contractual liability. The professional liability insurance required by this
Agreement must be endorsed to be applicable to claims based upon, arising out of or related to
services performed under this Agreement. The insurance must be maintained for at least 5
consecutive years following the completion of Consultant's services or the termination of this
Agreement. During this additional 5-year period, Consultant shall annually and upon request of
the City submit written evidence of this continuous coverage.
( e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds
under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated
herein.
(f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required
in the Special Requirements in Exhibit "B".
5 .2 General Insurance Requirements.
All of the above policies of insurance shall be primary insurance and shall name the City,
its elected and appointed officers, employees and agents as additional insureds and any insurance
maintained by City or its officers, employees or agents may apply in excess of, and not contribute
with Consultant's insurance. The insurer is deemed hereof to waive all rights of subrogation and
contribution it may have against the City, its officers, employees and agents and their respective
insurers. Moreover, the insurance policy must specify that where the primary insured does not
satisfy the self-insured retention, any additional insured may satisfy the self-insured retention.
Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained
in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a
waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given
coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not
intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a
waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above,
the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the
Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of
insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
All of said policies of insurance shall provide that said insurance may not be amended or
cancelled by the insurer or any party hereto without providing thirty (30) days prior written notice
by certified mail return receipt requested to the City. In the event any of said policies of insurance
are cancelled, the Consultant shall, prior to the cancellation date, submit new evidence of
insurance in conformance with Section 5.1 to the Contract Officer.
No work or services under this Agreement shall commence until the Consultant has
provided the City with Certificates of Insurance, additional insured endorsement forms or
appropriate insurance binders evidencing the above insurance coverages and said Certificates of
Insurance or binders are approved by the City. City reserves the right to inspect complete,
certified copies of and endorsements to all required insurance policies at any time. Any failure to
comply with the reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches or warranties
shall not affect coverage provided to City.
-8 -A-9 01203.0005/392135. l
All certificates shall name the City as additional insured (providing the appropriate
endorsement) and shall conform to the following "cancellation" notice:
CANCELLATION:
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE
THE EXPIRATION DATED THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL MAIL
THIRTY (30)-DAY ADVANCE WRITTEN NOTICE TO CERTIFICATE HOLDER
NAMED HEREIN.
[to be initialed]
Consultant Initials
City, its respective elected and appointed officers, directors, officials, employees, agents
and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of
activities Consultant performs; products and completed operations of Consultant; premises
owned, occupied or used by Consultant; or any automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by
Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded
to City, and their respective elected and appointed officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit
is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. At
the option of City, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured
retentions as respects City or its respective elected or appointed officers, officials, employees and
volunteers or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investigations, claim administration, defense expenses and claims. The Consultant agrees that the
requirement to provide insurance shall not be construed as limiting in any way the extent to
which the Consultant may be held responsible for the payment of damages to any persons or
property resulting from the Consultant's activities or the activities of any person or persons for
which the Consultant is otherwise responsible nor shall it limit the Consultant's indemnification
liabilities as provided in Section 5.3.
In the event the Consultant subcontracts any portion of the work in compliance with
Section 4.5 of this Agreement, the contract between the Consultant and such subcontractor shall
require the subcontractor to maintain the same policies of insurance that the Consultant is
required to maintain pursuant to Section 5.1, and such certificates and endorsements shall be
provided to City.
5.3 Indemnification.
To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") against, and will
hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial,
administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs,
penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened (herein "claims
or liabilities") that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in
connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein
of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or
entity for which Consultant is legally liable ("indemnitors"), or arising from Consultant's or
- 9 -
01203.0005/392135.1 A-10
indemnitors' reckless or willful misconduct, or ansmg from Consultant's or indemnitors'
negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this
Agreement, and in connection therewith:
(a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any
of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and
attorneys' fees incurred in connection therewith;
(b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its
officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection
with the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of
Consultant hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and
employees harmless therefrom;
(c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to
any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims
arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform the work,
operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers,
agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or
employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys'
fees.
Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if
it fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and
failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall not be a waiver hereof. This
indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or
omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional
services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring
as a result of City's sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent
permitted by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City's negligence,
except that design professionals' indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities
arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The
indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive
termination of this Agreement.
5.4 Sufficiency oflnsurer.
All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by
the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or is on the List of Approved
Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A-(or
higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of
Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City's Risk Manager. If this
Agreement continues for more than 3 years duration, or in the event the risk manager determines
that the work or services to be performed under this Agreement creates an increased or decreased
risk of loss to the City, the Consultant agrees that the minimum limits of the insurance policies
may be changed accordingly upon receipt of written notice from the Risk Manager.
-10 -A-11 01203.0005/392135. I
ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION
6.1 Records.
Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of
accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the
disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the "books and records"), as
shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract
Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete
and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all
times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make
records and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three
(3) years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such
records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant's business,
custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by
Consultant's successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall fully
cooperate with the City in providing access to the books and records if a public records request is
made and disclosure is required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records
Act.
6.2 Reports.
Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports
concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer
shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost of
work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant agrees
that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or
will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein or, if
Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant shall
promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the
estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design
services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed.
6.3 Ownership of Documents.
All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes,
computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the "documents and materials")
prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this
Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the
Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim
for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full
rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use,
reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted
documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the City's sole risk
and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant's guarantee and warranties shall not extend to
such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use.
Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein. All subcontractors shall
provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event
-11 -A-12 01203.0005/392135.l
Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages
resulting therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents and materials that may
qualify as "works made for hire" as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such documents and materials
are hereby deemed "works made for hire" for the City.
6.4 Confidentiality and Release oflnformation.
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant
in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in
the public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any
such information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written
authorization from the Contract Officer.
(b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors,
shall not, without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the
City Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at
depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed
under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary"
provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
( c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of
Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City
shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and
fees, including attorneys fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant's conduct.
( d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its
officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena,
notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other
discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work
performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be
present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully
with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests
provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean
the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION
7.1 California Law.
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to
performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions
concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be
instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or any other
appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal
jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District
Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California.
-12 -A-13 01203.0005/392135.1
7 .2 Disputes; Default.
In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall
not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed
after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the
reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the
default. This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not
reduced, if circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the
City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the
invoices. In the alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the
outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City
may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part
of the City to give notice of the Consultant's default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of
the City's legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.
7.3 Retention of Funds.
Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant
(whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in
dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or
damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by
reason of Consultant's acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant's
obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount
or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear
to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for
interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of
City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of
the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.
7.4 Waiver.
Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this
Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any
party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other
provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement.
Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of
the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by
a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a
waiver. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of
any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.
Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this
Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party
of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or
different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the
other party.
-13 -A-14 01203.0005/392135.1
7.6 Legal Action.
In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in
equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel
specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain
any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary
provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections
90 5 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.
7.7 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term.
This Section shall govern any termination of this Contract except as specifically provided
in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this
Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Consultant,
except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be
such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. In addition, the Consultant
reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon sixty (60)
days' written notice to City, except that where termination is due to the fault of the City, the
period of notice may be such shorter time as the Consultant may determine. Upon receipt of any
notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as
may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Except where the Consultant has initiated
termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to the
effective date of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer
thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the
Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the event the Consultant has initiated
termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the
work product actually produced hereunder. In the event of termination without cause pursuant to
this Section, the terminating party need not provide the non-terminating party with the
opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.
7 .8 Termination for Default of Consultant.
If termination is due to the failure of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this
Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work
and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable
to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the
compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate
such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off
or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.
7.9 Attorneys' Fees.
If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any
action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such
action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or
equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's
fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other
reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other
necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be
-14 -A-15 01203.0005/392135.1
deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or
not such action is prosecuted to judgment.
ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION
8.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees.
No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any
successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which
may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms
of this Agreement.
8.2 Conflict of Interest.
Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall
acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests
of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant's performance of services under this
Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person
having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor
without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times
avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City
in the performance of this Agreement.
No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in
this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the
Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation,
partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any
State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay
or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.
8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination.
Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons
claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of,
any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual
orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class in the performance of
this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed
and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed,
religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other
protected class.
8.4 Unauthorized Aliens.
Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, et seq., as amended, and in connection
therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ
such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this Agreement,
and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized aliens,
Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or
sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred by City.
-15 -A-16 01203.0005/392135.1
ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
9.1 Notices.
Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either party
desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either
served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager
and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of Rancho
Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., California 90275 and in the case of the Consultant, to the
person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of this Agreement. Either party may
change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be
deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in seventy-two (72) hours from the
time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.
9 .2 Interpretation.
The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the
language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of
this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.
9 .3 Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.
9 .4 Integration; Amendment.
This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive
expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements
between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels
any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between
the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification
of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by
the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be
waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.
9.5 Severability.
In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or
sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid
judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall
not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this
Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent
of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives
either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.
9.6 Warranty & Representation of Non-Collusion.
No official, officer, or employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in
this Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision
-16 -A-17 01203.0005/392135.1
relating to this Agreement which may affect his/her financial interest or the financial interest of
any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or
in violation of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly
interested, or in violation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of
"financial interest" shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be
"remote" or "noninterests" pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant
warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party
including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration, or
other thing of value as a result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement.
Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s),
omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money,
consideration, or other thing of value to any third party including, but not limited to, any City
official, officer, or employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or being awarded any
agreement. Consultant is aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other
conduct resulting in such payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render
this Agreement void and of no force or effect.
Consultant's Authorized Initials ---
9. 7 Corporate Authority.
The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such
party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this
Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally
bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not
violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall
be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
-17 -A-18 01203.0005/392135. l
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on
the date and year first-above written.
ATTEST:
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
David J. Aleshire, City Attorney
CITY:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
municipal corporation
Brian Campbell, Mayor
CONSULTANT:
INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP
By: ______________ _
Name:
Title:
By: ______________ _
Name:
Title:
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required
from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2)
Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT'S
SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTEST A TIO NS SHALL BE
INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR
OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT'S BUSINESS ENTITY.
-18 -A-19 01203.0005/392135.1
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On , 2017 before me, , personally appeared , proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(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.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: _______________ _
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
D INDIVIDUAL
0 CORPORATE OFFICER
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
TITLE(S)
D PARTNER(S) D LIMITED
D GENERAL NUMBER OF PAGES
D ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
D TRUSTEE(S)
D GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
D OTHER DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)) SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
01203.0005/392135.101203.0005/392135.101203.0005/392135.101203.0005/392135.1
A-20
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On , 2017 before me, , personally appeared , proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(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: _______________ _
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
D INDIVIDUAL
0 CORPORA TE OFFICER
D
D
D
D
D
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) D
D
LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER ____________ _
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
01203.0005/392135.1
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
A-21
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. Consultant will perform the following on-call Building & Safety consulting services
for City projects and for privately developed projects (the "Services"):
A. Plan Checks: Review building and development plans for conformance with the
California Building, Electrical, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes (the "Codes"),
the California Energy Standards, City ordinances and other requirements as set by
City Departments, as well as arranging for reviews by other responsible agencies,
as appropriate. Consultant shall provide all plan check comments in typed format
for all initial and subsequent plan reviews.
B. Permit Issuance: Issue building permits when all State law, City ordinances, and
other requirements are met. Building permits shall be issued during designated
office hours to optimize service to the public.
C. Inspection: Provide field inspections during the course of construction, pursuant
to applicable Codes. Inspection shall be made by the next working day following
arequest made by 4:00 p.m. If requested by a permit applicant, building inspectors
will provide appointments for field inspections within a specified two-hour time
frame on the day of the inspection.
D. Building Code Enforcement: Inspect and enforce all violations of the Codes and
the California Energy Standards, including substandard conditions. Attend office
conferences and appeals to the Board of Appeals or the City Council, pursuant to
requests for attendance from the Director of Community Development or his or
her designee. Report to the appropriate City Departments all suspected violations
of other City ordinances and requirements. On an as-needed basis, as directed by
the Building Official or the Director of Community Development, Consultant will
provide enforcement services for property maintenance violations.
E. Coordination: Coordinate procedures with the Building Official and the Director
of Community Development and provide appropriate information to the public.
F. Working Relationships: Establish working relationships and coordinate with other
appropriate public agencies and private utilities.
G. Meetings: Attend meetings with City staff, City officials, developers, contractors,
and the general public, as required by the Director of Community Development or
his or her designee.
H. Records: Maintain all original Building and Safety records and files at City Hall.
01203.0005/392135. I
A-22
I. Fee Collection: Calculate and identify all necessary fees for building permits, plan
check, and other related services for collection by the City. Assist in coordination
of requirements for contractor City business licenses.
J. Reporting: Keep daily logs of all plan check and inspection activities. Submit to
the Director of Community Development monthly itemized reports and an annual
itemized report of all service activities. Submit reports to other agencies, as
required by law or by the City. Coordinate the content and format of any reports
with the Building Official and the Director of Community Development.
K. Training & Certification: Provide periodic technical training to keep Consultant's
staff up-to-date on the latest codes and building techniques. Provide to, and
receive from, the Community Development Department's staff appropriate
training to coordinate the functions of that Department and the Consultant. Plan
review and inspection staff shall have obtained and must maintain current ICC
certifications. Consultant shall also employ a certified CASp disabled access
specialist pursuant to the requirements of SB 1608.
L. Availability to the Public: The Consultant understands that building and safety
personnel must be available to provide information about the status of active
permits and to answer general questions from the public at the counter or over the
telephone during City Hall business hours when requested to do so by City staff.
Such public availability shall be provided by either the City or Consultant's
personnel using schedules established by the City's Building Official that
optimize service to the public and are consistent with this Agreement.
M. Investigations: Conduct investigations pursuant to an approved purchase order
from the City, including field and office research and any follow-up work, such as
the preparation of letters and documents. These investigations may also include
but not be limited to inspections, research, and code enforcement, which are not
billable to a specific permit.
N. Special Studies: Consultant shall perform special building and safety studies or
other work pursuant to an approved purchase order from the City.
0. Labeling: Consultant shall allocate all costs to the appropriate trust deposit, plan
check number, or other special fund. Consultant shall indicate on all records and
documents the tract, lot or parcel number, address, or other designation to identify
the project site to which the costs pertain.
P. Vehicles: Consultant will provide all vehicles necessary to properly perform the
services and duties required under this Agreement.
01203.0005/392135. l
A-23
Q. Permits: When determined appropriate to do so by the Contract Officer, the scope
of Consultant's services shall include the issuance of construction-related permits
in the City's public rights-of-way. The type of permits to be issued will be
determined by the Director of Community Development and will include, but not
be limited to, curb cut permits for new or relocated driveway aprons, and
temporary dumpster permits in the street.
II. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible
work products to the City:
A. Plan-check comments.
B. Permits.
C. Daily logs of all plan check and inspection activities.
D. Preparation of letters and documents related to plan checks, investigations, and all
other Services, as applicable.
E. Any other documents, correspondence, or reports that the Director deems
necessary.
III. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2, during performance of the Services,
Consultant will keep the City appraised of the status of performance by delivering
the following status reports. (See II, above.)
IV. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be
revised by the Consultant without additional charge to the City until found
satisfactory and accepted by City.
V. Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services:
A. Ron Beehler
B. Henry Huang
C. Chandra Desai
D. Tom Campbell
E. Sandra Schmitz
F. Hossein Afrouzeh
G. Bill Tewfik
H. Tony Dormanesh
01203.0005/392135.1
A-24
I. David Marcum
J. Edward Cooke
K. Terry Vosler
L. R. Marcel McElroy
M. Artemio Orozco, Jr.
N. 0 li via Ortiz
0. Sylvia Holloway
P. Stephanie Gumpert
Q. Denise M. Hayes
R. Andrew Shuck
S. Mark Hankinson*
T. Oscar Barraza*
*Personnel assigned to in-office services at City Hall.
01203.0005/392135.1
A-25
EXHIBIT "B"
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
I. Section 2.1, Contract Sum, is amended to read as follows (deleted text in strikethrough
and added text in bold italics):
2.1 Contract Sum.
Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the
amounts specified in the "Schedule of Compensation" attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and
incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation including reimbursement for actual
expenses, shall not exceed Two Hundred and One Thousand Dollars ($201,000) per fiscal
year, and shall not exceed Six Hundred and Three Thousand Dollars ($603,000)/or the entire
Term, including the optional one-year extension-; (the "Contract Sum"), unless additional
compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1.8.
II. Section 3.4, Term, is amended to read as follows (deleted text in strikethrough and
added text in bold italics):
3.4 Term.
Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement
shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding ette
fBtwo (2) years from the date hereof, with an additional one (1) year extension at the City
Manager's discretion, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit
"D").
01203.0005/392135.101203.0005/392135.101203.0005/392135.101203.0005/392135.1
A-26
EXHIBIT "C"
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Consultant shall perform the following tasks at the following rates:
RATE/HR TIME SUB-BUDGET
A. Plan Check $80-$95/hr 96 hours/month $100,000
B. Permit Issuance $55-65/hr 30.5 hours/month $15,000
c. Inspection $80-95/hr 24 hours/month $25,000
D. Investigation $85-95/hr 24 hours/month $25,000
E. Code $85-95/hr 14 hours/month $15,000
Enforcement
F. Training and $80-95/hr $69 hours/year $6,000
Certification
G. Special Studies $80-95/hr 14 hours/month $15,000
TOTAL $201,000
**All tasks will include record maintenance, fee collection, and reporting, as applicable.
II. A retention of five percent (5%) shall be held from each payment as a contract
retention to be paid as part of the final payment upon satisfactory completion of
services. NOT APPLICABLE.
III. Within the budgeted amounts for each Task, and with the approval of the Contract
Officer, funds may be shifted from one Task subbudget to another so long as the
Contract Sum is not exceeded per Section 2.1, unless Additional Services are
approved per Section 1.8.
IV. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of
a valid monthly invoice. Each invoice is to include:
A. For all Services the following information shall be included, as applicable:
1. Trust deposit, plan check number, or other special fund to which the
Services pertain for each line item. The tract, lot or parcel numbers,
address or other designation to identify the project site to which the costs
01203.0005/392135.101203.0005/392135.101203.0005/392135.101203.0005/392135. l
A-27
pertain shall be indicated on all line items, as well as the date the service
was provided and the date the field report and/or approval/non-approval
letter was submitted to the City.
2. Line items for all personnel describing the work performed including the
name of the individual who performed the work, the number of hours
worked, and the hourly rate.
3. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the
Services.
4. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with
supporting documentation.
5. Line items for all approved subcontractor labor, supplies, equipment,
materials, and travel properly charged to the Services.
V. Consultant will be compensated for the Services as provided in Section 2.1 of this
Agreement.
VI. The Consultant's billing rates for all personnel are attached as Exhibit "C-1".
01203.0005/392135.1
A-28
EXHIBIT "C-1"
RA TES FOR ALL PERSONNEL
Personnel Rates {by gualification)
A. Certified Building Official
B. Registered Structural Engineer
C. Registered Professional Engineer
D. ICC Certified Plans Examiner
E. CASp
F. ICC Certified Building Inspector
G. Permit Technician
H. Code Enforcement Officer
Personnel Rates (by individual)
A. Ron Beehler -$140
B. Henry Huang -$140
C. Chandra Desai -$120
D. Tom Campbell -$120
E. Sandra Schmitz -$120
F. Hossein Afrouzeh -$120
G. Bill Tewfik -$120
H. Tony Dormanesh -$120
I. David Marcum -$95
J. Edward Cooke -$100
Services Rates
G. Plan Check
H. Permit Issuance
I. Inspection
J. Code Enforcement
01203.0005/392135. l
K. Terry Vosler -$95
$140.00/hr
$135.00/hr
$120.00/hr
$100.00/hr
$110.00/hr
$80.00-$95.00/hr
$55.00-$65.00/hr
$85.00-$95.00/hr
L. R. Marcel McElroy -$88
M. Artemio Orozco, Jr. -$95
N. Olivia Ortiz -$55
0. Sylvia Holloway -$65
P. Stephanie Gumpert -$65
Q. Denise M. Hayes -$60
R. Andrew Shuck -$90
S. Mark Hankinson* -$100
T. Oscar Barraza* -$95
$80.00-$95.00/hr
$55.00-$65.00/hr
$80.00-$95 .00/hr
$85.00-$95.00/hr
A-29
EXHIBIT "D"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Consultant shall perform all Services timely as directed by the Contract Officer.
Maximum turn around time for plan checks shall be as follows:
Type of Job Maximum Turn-Around Time
First Check Re-Check Expedited (Re-Check)
RESIDENTIAL (Single Family Dwellings)
New Construction 10 Working Days 5 Working Days 6 Working Days (3 Working
Davs)
Addition 10 Working Days 5 Working Days 6 Working Days (3 Working
Remodel 10 Working Days 5 Working Days ,~ Working Days (3 Working
NON-RESIDENTIAL or MULTIFAMILY
New Construction 10 Working Days 5 Working Days 8 Working Days ( 5 Working
Davs)
Addition 10 Working Days 5 Working Days 6 Working Days (3 Working
Remodel (T .I.) 10 Working Days 5 Working Days 6 Working Days (3 Working
II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the
following dates.
A. Plan-check comments (see table in Section I, above).
B. Permits, as directed by the Building Official or Director of Community
Development.
C. Daily logs of all plan check and inspection activities.
D. Timely reparation of letters and documents related to plan checks, investigations,
and all other Services, as applicable.
E. Timely preparation of any other documents, correspondence, or reports that the
Director deems necessary.
III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in
accordance with Section 3.2.
01203.0005/392I35.I01203.0005/392135.101203.0005/392135. I 01203.0005/392135. I
A-30
EXHIBIT "C"
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Consultant shall perform the following tasks at the following rates:
TASK RATE SUB-BUDGET
A. Project Organization for Senior $7,500 $7,500
Planner Recruitment
B. Development of Senior Planner $7,500 $7,500
Candidate Profile and Recruitment
Opened
c. Interviews and Background Check for $8,000 $8,000
selected Senior Planner
D. Project Organization for Senior $9,000 $9,000
Engineers Recruitment
E. Development of Senior Engineer $9,000 $9,000
Candidate Profile and Recruitment
Opened
F. Interviews and Background Check for $10,000 $10,000
selected Senior Engineers
TOTAL $51,000
II. A retention of ten percent (10%) shall be held from each payment as a contract
retention to be paid as part of the final payment upon satisfactory completion of
Services. NOT APPLICABLE.
III. Within the budgeted amounts for each Task, and with the approval of the Contract
Officer, funds may be shifted from one Task subbudget to another so long as the
Contract Sum is not exceeded per Section 2.1, unless Additional Services are
approved per Section 1.8.
IV. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of
a valid invoice at the completion of each task satisfactory to the City. Each invoice is
to include:
A. Line items for all personnel describing the work performed, the number of hours
worked, and the hourly rate.
B. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the Services.
C. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting
documentation.
01203.0004/394220.3
A-25
D. Line items for all approved subcontractor labor, supplies, equipment, materials, and
travel properly charged to the Services.
V. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed $51,000 as provided in
Section 2.1 of this Agreement. Provided, if an additional candidate from either of
these recruitment processes is selected for another position at the City within one
year, i.e., by December 31, 2018, a fee of $5,000 will be due to Consultant as an
Additional Service pursuant to Section 1.8. Additionally, if a candidate is hired as a
result of Consultant's Services and that candidate is employed for less than 12
months, Consultant will providing recruitment services for a replacement free of
charge.
VI. The Consultant's billing rates for all personnel are attached as Exhibit C-1. NOT
APPLICABLE
01203.0004/394220.3
A-2lo
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Mr. Knight,
Thank you for your email.
So Kim
Monday, July 31, 2017 4:08 PM
Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>
CC; Cassie Jones; Jeremy Davies; Ara Mihranian
RE: LME Exception U
This email is in response specific to spot zoning. Staff considers spot zoning as either placing or zoning a piece of land that is
different from the surrounding neighborhood. In other words, designating a piece of property with a zoning designation that
would be contrary to the general use of that area (e.g. commercial in a residential neighborhood). The property at 48
Cinnamon is already zoned single-family residential and no changes are proposed to its zoning designation. Its surrounding
properties are also zoned single-family residential at the same density. As a result, Staff would not consider the proposed code
amendment to allow development on the 48 Cinnamon property as spot zoning.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
yvww.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 12:09 PM
To: CC
Cc: Cassie Jones; Jeremy Davies
Subject: LME Exception U
FROM: Jim Knight
TO: City Council
RE: Moratorium amendment Exception Category U
DATE: July 29, 2017
Dear Council members,
I am puzzled at the Aug. 1, 2017 agenda item to establish a Landslide Moratorium Exception Category U for
residential development on 48 Cinnamon Lane. I trust that since the last time this suggested Ordinance was presented
you had a chance to review it with the City Attorney.
1 I
If you have decided that this is not spot zoning, then I don't know why this amendment is even necessary. If any
applicant within this zoning has equal rights to proceed through the permitting process as laid out by the existing
Moratorium Ordinance, then this Exception U to the Ordinance is not needed. This applicant, as any applicant in
Zone 2, should be entitled to submit plans to the City then be subject to the Director's approval of an exception permit
after complying with Sec. 15.20.050, and providing a geological report. Why cannot this applicant go forth like any
other applicant in this zone without this Exception U? Why is a separate amendment to the Landslide Ordinance even
necessary?
If the Exception Category U amendment is required to establish a privilege only granted to 48 Cinnamon, and no
other lot within this zoning has that same right, then we are right back to the spot zoning issue raised the last time this
was presented to you. All indications suggest that this is the case.
-Amendment U specifically calls out one lot within the zoning ordinance; 48 Cinnamon.
-On p. 4, the Staff report states the City Attorney has determined that this proposed Ordinance would permit the
development of the 48 Cinnamon Lane lot.
-P. 4 "The City considered the Settlement Agreement to be valid and accordingly approved a LME Permit.
Establishing Exception Category "U" effectuates the intent of the Settlement Agreement. .. ". Clearly Exception
Category "U" is for the one lot in the Settlement Agreement and I do not understand how a Settlement agreement is
valid if it violates municipal code. Requiring an Exception Category to an existing ordinance for one lot
to"effectuate" intent of the Settlement Agreement only exacerbates the City's position on this. (Please see Division 8
Appellate Court case decision of City of Los Angeles vs. CBS Outdoors, Inc. filed Dec. 10, 2010 in which a City
settlement agreement was voided by the courts because it violated municipal code.)
Responses to public comments in the Staff report somehow did not address the overarching issue raised of whether or
not the city has determined this Code Amendment U is spot zoning or not. If the City has determined that this is not
spot zoning then the public, which has raised the issue extensively, has the right to know the rationale as to why it is
not spot zoning.
Other questions raised by Exception Category "U":
Will other applicants within the Landslide Moratorium be treated equally? Will other applicants within this zone need
a lot/address specific exception category for their applications? If this is the thinking, this is no way to establish a
development code. Lot by lot exceptions are not the way any development code is established.
2
If other applicants need to just apply under the existing LME process with no Exception Category, then we are back
to the question of why is lot 48 Cinnamon granted this special Exception Category U.
Beyond the fundamental issue of spot zoning, I have other general comments that I have raised in the past with regard
to the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance.
-The geological criteria set forth in the Moratorium Ordinance does not comply with common practice in any other
city nor to the California State Mining and Geology Board which established a standard of a slope stability factor of
safety of at least 1.5 for any development. (1 Yz resistive force to driving force). There are well established
engineering calculations and criteria to establish this factor of safety.
It is as if a ship builder gets approval to launch their ship if all deck chairs are now bolted down to the deck because
they will not "aggravate the existing situation" and have no engineering standards for the underlying foundation
(existing situation) of the ship itself.
I challenge you to ask any geologist, including the City geologist, what engineering criteria and calculations, if any,
there is for a standard of "shall not aggravate the existing situation." The City did hire a geology firm in the past
which concluded that the exact stability of Zone 2 was unknown but it was above 1.0 and less than 1.5.
As your responsibility of stewards to City affairs and before taking action on this Agenda item, I implore you to fully
answer the public questions raised on this matter and use good science when administrating any legislation.
Thank you for your service,
Jim Knight
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
cassiej@aol.com
Monday, July 31, 2017 3:13 PM
cc
So Kim
Moratorium Amendment Exception U
Moratorium Amendment Exception Category U.docx
Dear Council Members, please accept a few comments regarding the Moratorium Amendment Exception U.
Thank you so much.
Cassie Jones
Rancho Palos Verdes
cassiej@aol.com
1
I
FROM: Cassie Jones
TO: City Council, Rancho Palos Verdes
RE: Moratorium amendment Exception Category U
DATE: July 30, 2017
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
It is interesting to say the least that, "As a result of the appeal, the Director determined that the use of
Exception Category B to approve the applicant's LME Permit was not appropriate, and that a new
exception category should be adopted by the City Council to reflect the intent of the Settlement
Agreement." The hearing of the appeal has not even taken place! One should argue that the intent of
the Settlement Agreement was precisely as the city attorney worded it and as all parties agreed to.
It bothers me that the City is governing in this manner.
This push to develop in Zone 2 as a perk or benefit of losing a structure in other zones is not based on
good or even common sense. Rebuilding of destroyed properties has been specified to take place in the
same general location on the property. When that is no longer possible, the last place one should
encourage re-building is back within the landslide moratorium. This is literally just pushing the problem
further down, or in this case up, the road. There is no access to this -or any-Zone 2 lot other than
through one of two active landslides.
There is not good control over the Portuguese Bend Landslide, which would be entrance from the east,
and the City has no control over the Abalone Cove Landslide other than its input to ACLAD, which is the
approach from the west. To keep adding construction and hardscape to Zone, without the information
that the tabled Zone 2 EIR suggested was needed, is wholly irresponsible governance. The drainage
issues that ACLAD has in balance has kept one entrance to the area more consistently reliable for the
foreseeable future than the other. The contemplation of additional construction, even one structure at
a time such as this piecemealing and patchwork process of development, whether it is in Zone 2 or Point
View or any of the other areas impacted by the two landslides should only be done with good science
and reliable, defendable factors of safety.
Some may not want to think this is spot zoning, but it is, all semantics aside. The defining characteristic
of spot zoning is the narrowness and unjustified nature of the benefit to a particular property owner
over property owners within that district or zoning and that does not serve a general public good.
Is this how each property that fails or cannot be rebuilt in the same location is to be treated? Have all
the other homes lost over the years received this special treatment? Is this the deal going forward for
all the other properties off their GPS locations? Of course, more questions than answers right now-but
these should be things that have been worked out prior to more code amendments for special projects.
The City has begun a process to help identify ways to mitigate the Portuguese Bend Landslide, yet
putting more homes in harm's way before that is figured out just doesn't make any good sense. That
process is a good step, but only a first step. In conjunction with the EIR work already done and the
Altamira Canyon studies as well, the City is making strides in the right direction to lay the groundwork
for assuring the public that further projects are developed in the way that preserves or even enhances
what land stability they can.
The council can and should use its discretion and deny this proposed zoning change. Thank you for your
acute attention to this.
Cassie Jones
Rancho Palos Verdes
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Matt Waters
Thursday, July 27, 2017 10:37 AM
CityClerk
Teresa Takaoka
Subject: FW: City Council will recommend a design for Ladera Linda Park, 8/1/2017 meeting
Teri-
Late correspondence below for Aug. 1 CC: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan, Item #4
Thanks-Matt
From: Matt Waters
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 10:36 AM
To: Lee Williams <LawrenceLeeWilliams@hotmail.com>; Mary Hirsch <MaryH@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: City Council will recommend a design for Ladera Linda Park, 8/1/2017 meeting
Dear Mr. Williams,
Thank you for your email about the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan design. I hope you can attend the August 1st Council
Meeting. Your email will be included as late correspondence for Council's consideration. Ladera Linda has always been a
community-focused park and the recommended design is intended to maintain that low-key, local community feeling. Please
feel free to contact me with any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattw@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f
From: Lee Williams [mailto:LawrenceLeeWilliams@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 5:23 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Mary Hirsch <MaryH@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fw: City Council will recommend a design for Ladera Linda Park, 8/1/2017 meeting Lf.
I like the "Less is More" approach to the parks mentioned below. In fact, sad to say, but probably "Nothing is Best"
approach is the ultimate solution. In the 2 years we have lived here, we have gone to various parks, and I would say
1
99% of the people are not from our community. So in essence, we have parks for outsiders, they are not for us. Just
keep that in mind when spending money, it does nothing for the residents here. It's depressing to me, and it is
something I warn people about if they are consider moving here ... about the hoards of nomadic invaders.
The quote below ... "Explore outdoors, the parks are yours!" Indeed, I wish they were.
Lawrence Williams
From: Christine Williams <bidearwls91@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 4:40 PM
To: Lawrence Williams
Subject: Fw: City Council will recommend a design for Ladera Linda Park, 8/1/2017 meeting
From: Erika Barber <nbarber310@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 4:10 PM
To: Erika Barber
Subject: City Council will recommend a design for Ladera Linda Park, 8/1/2017 meeting
Those of you who are interested in the Ladera Linda Master Plan please respond to this email. I think all of us here in Seaview
should have a say in this. The city is willing to listen. Erika
From: Mary Hirsch [mailto:MaryH@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 1:55 PM
To: Undisclosed recipients:
Subject: City Council will recommend a design for Ladera Linda Park, 8/1/2017 meeting
The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will reviewing and potentially approving a recommended design for Ladera Linda Park
including a new building at the August 1st City Council meeting. The recommended design is the result of Council guidance and
extensive public feedback, particularly from residents living near to the Park. The recommended design reflects the City
Council's "Less is More" approach to Park Planning. The design reduces the existing square footage of the current buildings,
maintains existing park elements, does not add any additional elements, and keeps the Park's low-key neighborhood feel.
Click per~_for the August 1st City Council agenda. Go to Item 4 of Regular Business to access the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Staff Report.
For more information and to see the recommended design (A-1), ~DU:o go tbe Ladera Linda Pa~k Master Pla_n webpagg.
The August 1st City Council Meeting is at 7:00pm at Fred Hesse Community Park's McTaggart Hall located at 29301 Hawthorne
Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275.
Please contact Recreation and Parks Senior Analyst Matt Waters with any questions or concerns at mattw@rpvca.gov or at
310-544-5218.
Mary Hirsch
Administrative Staff Assistant/Volunteer Coordinator
Department of Recreation and Parks
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5260
Explore outdoors, the parks are yours!
2
From: Cory Linder
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 11 :14 AM
herbertstark@cox.net To:
Cc: CC; Doug Willmore; Gabriella Yap
Subject: RE : City Council will recommend a design for Ladera Linda Park, 8/1/2017 meeting
Mr. Stark:
Thank you for your email and I am sorry you feel that way. The recommended design {which is a Master Plan design for the
site, not a construction-ready document) is the result of an extensive public outreach effort going back to the Parks Master
Plan effort of 2014-15. As you know, multiple community workshops, with a particular emphasis on the input from local
residents, informed the recommended plan being presented to Council next week . The reduced size of the building, the
emphasis on a low-ke y, less -is -more design approach, the emphasis on mirroring ex isting uses and not adding new
components, are all a result of community and Council direction.
Staff was very clear at the la st workshop that the comments received (verbally, via comment cards, and by e-mail) would be
considered in the formation of the final recommended design that would then be taken to the City Council for review and
potential approval. Staff presented Concepts A and B for discussion and stated that either concept could be selected or a
combination thereof. After review of all comments received at the workshop and after a two week comment card period,
Concept A was the clear favorite. Based on that feedback, Concept A-1 was created.
All of the concerns you raised were considered by staff and RFA during this process. Many of your points have already been
incorporated into the design and others will be addressed during the construction design process . I'd like to address your
concerns point by point:
1. Insufficient parking The recommended design increases and improves the existing parking situation. The number of
spaces is based on proposed components.
2. Location of children's area and the basketball courts Basketball courts moved next to children's playground area.
3. Building configuration relating to security and final size Building size reflects community input. Exact configurations,
and security aspects, to be worked out during construction design phase. Again, the footprint of the proposed building
is approximately 9,100 sf, far less than the current square footage of the existing structures (approx imate ly 13,500 sf).
4. A major issue, the fear that the residents would end up in another Del Serro mess . There was a consensus at the April
workshop to include a parking/gate component on Forrestal to address the issue of neighborhood parking. This was
added to the plan for Council consideration.
5. Will the new Park be completely fenced and locked up at night? There was nothing approaching a consensus on this
issue. There was discussion at the April workshop that completely securing a park of this size is challenging. This issue
will be discussed and determined during the construction design and budgeting phase.
6. Will there be security cameras around the Park site? Security issues like this will be discussed and determined during
the construction design phase .
7. Areas where families or groups (under 15) can have a picnic. That component was added near the existing paddle
tennis courts.
8. A cost comparison for removing two of the present buildings and upgrading the utilities of the remaining MPR,
Restrooms and Discovery room buildings? Leave all landscaping and play areas the same. The overwhelming
consensus was to not retrofit, but to go forward with concept A with modifications. The City Council directed Staff to
proceed with not retrofitting at its Oct . 18, 2016 meeting .
9. The need for benches near the playgrounds for parents/grandparents watching their kids . Those elements are in the
plan.
10. Residents are concerned about construction noise and dirt. Extensive mitigation efforts will be identified in the
construction bid documents to minimize impacts concerning noise and/or dirt. Any project of this scope will result in
1 tf.
some inconvenience to local residents, but all efforts will be taken to minimize that impact . Hopefully, the negative
short-term impact will be outweighed by the positive long -term impact of a greatly-improved park.
I have to say that in my opinion, far from blindsiding the community, continued resident involvement is encouraged and crucial
to this project's viability and success. Local residents, HOAs, workshop attendees, and anyone who sent in an e-mail about this
project, are being notified about the August pt Council Meeting by Listserv and e-mails. Residents within a 1,000 foot radius of
Ladera Linda are being notified. If Council approves this plan, there will be many additiona l public outreach efforts to receive
public input and address community concerns.
Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions and concerns.
CORY A. LINDER, Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Department of Recreation and Parks
310-544-5260
--------Original message --------
From: Herb Stark <herbertstark@cox.net>
Date: 7/27/17 6:50 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Mary Hirsch <MaryH@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: City Council will recommend a design for Ladera Linda Park, 8/1/2017 meeting
Once again City Staff has blind sighted the residents of RPV .
At the last meeting between the residents and staff/contractor, city staff agreed to meet with the residents before they
went to the city council to present the final recommendations.
Although the residents preferred option A (retaining the present entrance) there were several issues that were raised
by the residents.
1. Insufficient parking
2. Location of children's area and the basketball courts
3. Building configuration relating to security and final size
4. A major issue, the fear that the residents would end up in another Del Serro mess.
5. Will the new Park be completely fenced and locked up at night?
6. Will there be security cameras around the Park site?
7. Areas where families or groups (under 15) can have a picnic .
8. A cost comparison for removing two of the present buildings and upgrading the utilities of the remaining
MPR, Restrooms and Discovery room buildings? Leave all land scaping and play areas the same.
9. The need for benches near the playgrounds for parents/grandparents watching their kids.
10. Residents are concerned about construction noise and dirt.
Above all that the facility will become an outside attraction for residential crime and only serve to encourage and
exacerbate street parking on Pirate and Searaven.
Herb
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 1 :54 PM, Mary Hirsch <MaryH@rpvca.gov> wrote:
2
The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will reviewing and potentially approving a recommended design for Ladera
Linda Park including a new building at the August 1st City Council meeting. The recommended design is the result
, of Council guidance and extensive public feedback, particularly from residents living near to the Park. The
recommended design reflects the City Council's "Less is More" approach to Park Planning. The design reduces the
existing square footage of the current buildings, maintains existing park elements, does not add any additional
elements, and keeps the Park's low-key neighborhood feel.
Click here for the August 1st City Council agenda. Go to Item 4 of Regular Business to access the Ladera Linda
Park Master Plan Staff Report.
For more information and to see the recommended design (A-1), click here to go the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
webpage .
The August 1st City Council Meeting is at 7:00pm at Fred Hesse Community Park's McTaggart Hall located at
29301 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275.
Please contact Recreation and Parks Senior Analyst Matt Waters with any questions or concerns at
mattw@rpvca.gov or at 310-544-5218 .
Mary Hirsch
' Administrative Staff Assistant/Volunteer Coordinator
Department of Recreation and Parks
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5260
Explore outdoors , the parks are yours!
3
From: Matt Waters
Sent:
To:
Monday, July 31, 2017 10:11 AM
ROBERT LAUCK
Cc: CityClerk; Teresa Takaoka; Cory Linder
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Comments
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your email. This email, and the April 30th email contained within, will be included as late correspondence for
Council consideration.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattw@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f
From: ROBERT LAUCK [mailto:rlauck@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2017 10:15 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Comments
Dear Matt,
i do not have access to my home computer so I am using this means to provide an input for the Aug 1 Council review
of the proposed Ladera Linda upgrade. I note that in the plan to be recommended to the Council the east field area
has a number of modifications including the concrete sidewalks and gardens that would basically make it unusable as
a ball or soccer field as so many who picnic there in groups frequently use for those purposes. As I stated in my
previous email below in 40 plus years of traversing and using the park that has been how it is most used. I think it is
more usable if minimally modified and we can save some money on the upgrade.
If you can, please add this and my previous email as an input to the Aug 1 Council Meeting for New Business Agenda
item 4, Ladera Linda Park .
Thanks for all your work on this upgrade.
Robert and Donna Lauck
1
On May 4, 2017 at 4:35 PM Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Dear Bob and Donna Lauck,
Thank you for your email and for your kind words. Thank you also for sharing your opinions about a
number of issues including your preference for Plan A, the lower field play area (asphalt and grass),
ADA access, and noise and lighting. Your email will be sbmed with the design team and will be
attached to the eventual report/recommendation to City Council.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattw@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f
From: R. Lauck [mailto:rlauck@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 9:57 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Comments
2
First of all thanks for the good work you all have put into developing this plan. I believe Plan A is the
best of the two options. Also, I relooked at the east side of the park from the basketball/volley
ball/tetherball and play areas, and the ball field to Forrestal Dr. Over the forty five years I have been in
or traversed the park, my experience has been that that area has probably been the most used of the
areas in the park and accommodates the most activities of any area in the park. The open area of the
field is used regularly for a number of activities including group picnicking and numerous field sports
activities. I don't think that it matters much to the picnicking groups using the area that it isn't a
regulation size soccer field. And I think keeping the grass field (including the backstop) is more
important than adding shrubbery. I would recommend that you save some money and keep that
area as is. I do not think it is important to put the child play areas together, but if that is important to
you maybe it could be accommodated within the area opened up with the removal of the
classroom/bathroom building. Also, maybe there is another area you can put the ADA access that
wouldn't require changing the east end of the field. A walkway through the field breaks it up for
sports and limits its use. If it must be there maybe the walkway could be along the north side of the
field as close to the berm as possible or on the south side close to the fence. Most walkers probably
would be ok with walking in the grass.
And, as a general guideline in reworking the park, I would suggest that areas where there is the
probability of more noise or nighttime lighting should be set back from the Seaview side of the park
and light poles, structures and buildings should be limited in height so that they are not visible from the
Seaview or Ladera Linda neighborhoods to the extent possible.
Thanks again for your efforts.
Bob and Donna Lauck
4122 Dauntless Dr., Seaview
310-5412-4416
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Madeline,
Matt Waters
Monday, July 31, 2017 4:45 PM
Madeline Ryan
cc
RE: Ladera Linda Park Renovations -Proposal
I'd like to assure you that your earlier emails were considered by the design team. Precise details such as bike racks and
animal-accessible water fountains can be identified and added during the construction design phase, pending Council approval
of the project. Regarding EQ access on Forrestal, the recommended design does include an option for adding a gate at the far
end of Forrestal with adjacent space for trailer parking and turnaround. This addition was based on both EQ concerns and also
the large number of workshop attendees who asked that a Forrestal Preserve parking component be added.
Please feel free to reach out to me with any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattw@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5218 p -(310) 544-5291 f
From: Madeline Ryan [mailto:pvpasofino@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 10:39 AM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Renovations -Proposal
Hello Matt
Reviewed the park design proposal that Staff is recommending, and while there are many
new amenities, there isn't one amenity or mention of the few suggestions made to you to
consider for the other trail users: equestrians and bikers.
Trying to understand the 'less is more' approach, must mean with less amenities for other-
than hiker/walker trail users, means more are~s to have designated for walking paths, f •
butterfly gardens, meandering walkways, covered picnic areas, decorative paving,
streambed, lawn areas and recreational seating; in other words, people who work at Ladera
Linda, hike in Forrestal and live in Ladera Linda will surely benefit from these amenities.
Please don't interpret my perception of this proposal as an objection, just disappointed that
not one of the suggestions for equestrian/bicyclist needs sent to you in May were
included. Were they even considered?
What would it take to install a 'tie rail' and bike rack and a drinking fountain that would
accommodate people, equestrians and small animals (dogs) somewhere at the north end
where bicyclists and equestrians could temporarily leave a bike or a horse tied while visiting
the restroom, getting a drink of water or just sit awhile in the butterfly garden?
Having sat on the Forrestal Committee to determine trail use (hiker, bicyclists, equestrians)
for the various Forrestal Trails, I found out first hand the approach taken by the Ladera Linda
Homeowners' Association and that was to not allow equestrians anywhere near the Ladera
Linda Park area.
Just a reminder, equestrians were stewards of this land long before the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy and the Ladera Linda Homeowners'
Association. To exclude bicyclists and equestrians from enjoying these amenities seems
discriminatory, and it appears the LLHA takes a proprietary approach to this park. You know,
more or less.
Thank you, Matt.
Madeline Ryan
28328 PV
"May the Trails be with you ... " Madeline
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Council Members,
SunshineRPV@aol.com
Friday, July 28, 2017 3:27 PM
cc
Dan Landon
Fwd: City Council will recommend a design for Ladera Linda Park, 8/1/2017 mee ...
Speaking as the ghost of Lois Knight LaRue.
Do take a second look at this Subject: line. Is Staff really this confident that you will do whatever they
recommend? Or, does Staff not understand that the Council does not need to recommend anything to
anybody?
And, does Staff not have access to "grammar check"? ... City Council will reviewing and potentially approving
a recommended ...
OK, I am over 60 years old and my Mother was an English Teacher. "Transparency" requires some
communication skills.
I have written out my suggestions for a Ladera Linda Plan C. There is nothing in the Staff Report which
explains how they were "considered". No traffic safety report. No improved trail connection to the PV
Preserve. No trail head amenities. Once again, the project site is being treated as though it is an island as
opposed to being part of a community.
Please send the children back to the drawing board with an admonishment to read the RPV General Plan
and the RPV Trails Network Plan.. .. .S
From: MaryH@rpvca.gov
Sent: 7/26/2017 1 :55:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: City Council will recommend a design for Ladera Linda Park, 8/1/2017 meeting
The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will reviewing and potentially approving a recommended design for
Ladera Linda Park including a new building at the August 1st City Council meeting. The recommended design
is the result of Council guidance and extensive public feedback, particularly from residents living near to the
Park. The recommended design reflects the City Council's "Less is More" approach to Park Planning. The
design reduces the existing square footage of the current buildings, maintains existing park elements, does not
add any additional elements, and keeps the Park's low-key neighborhood feel.
Click here for the August 1st City Council agenda. Go to Item 4 of Regular Business to access the Ladera
Linda Park Master Plan Staff Report.
1
q
For more information and to see the recommended design (A-1), click here to go the Ladera Linda Park
Master Plan webpage.
The August 1st City Council Meeting is at 7:00pm at Fred Hesse Community Park's McTaggart Hall
located at 29301 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275.
Please contact Recreation and Parks Senior Analyst Matt Waters with any questions or concerns at
mattw@rpvca.gov or at 310-544-5218.
Mary Hirsch
Administrative Sta.ff Assistant/Volunteer Coordinator
Department of Recreation and Parks
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5260
Explore outdoors, the parks are yours!
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
G_ZITPA <gzitpa@gmail.com>
Sunday, July 30, 2017 12:03 PM
cc
herbertstark@cox.net
Subject: Fwd: Ladera Linda Plan
This is ginette Aelony
I agree completely with Herb Stark's comments.
smaller IS better.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Herb Stark <herbertstark@cox.net>
Subject: Ladera Linda Plan
Here are my comments on what is proposed for the Tuesday City Council meeting.
First let me say that the contractor went a long way in meeting the community's requirements but fell
short in several areas. What is appearing is an information center and rental facility for a trail head to
the preserve.
1. The presently proposed building is still too large and should be scaled back to around 8,000 square
feet. I would like to suggest that the Discovery Room be eliminated but still retain the small storage
area so the docents can use portable displays for their introduction to scheduled field trips using one of
the conference rooms. The two small conference rooms should be scaled for meetings of not more
than 30 people and the large conference room for 100.
2. I would be against a private/public funding as proposed if it means the renting out the facility for
the investor to get a return on his investment.
3. The contractor did not preserve the two old growth trees in the park and there should be stairs from
the Forrestal parking to the upper parking lot.
4. Before any further commitment of city funds is made there should be a requirement for a traffic
study to be performed as part of the plan to determine the impact of the new facility on the
community.
5. In addition to the traffic study, a security plan and community crime impact study needs to be
addressed before any commitment to build is authorized.
6. There was no limit on the use of the facilities even though the community specified that they
wanted a passive neighborhood park and not a community center.
Herb
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Herb Stark < herbertstark@cox.net>
Monday, July 31, 2017 7:26 AM
CityClerk
Regular Business Item #4 Ladera Linda
First let me say that the contractor went a long way in meeting the community's requirements but fell short in several
areas. What is appearing is an information center and rental facility for a trail head to the preserve.
1. The presently proposed building is still too large and should be scaled back to around 8,000 square feet. I would
like to suggest that the Discovery Room be eliminated but still retain the small storage area so the docents can use
portable displays for their introduction to scheduled field trips using one of the conference rooms. The two small
conference rooms should be scaled for meetings of not more than 30 people and the large conference room for
100. The building design has to be revisited and started over. There are far too many outside comers that appears to
be there only to reduce the square footage of the building but could present a security issue.
2. I would be against a private/public funding as proposed if it means the renting out the facility for the investor to
get a return on his investment.
3. The contractor did not preserve the two old growth trees in the park and there should be stairs from the Forrestal
parking to the upper parking lot.
4. Before any further commitment of city funds are made there should be a requirement for a traffic study to be
performed as part of the plan to determine the impact of the new facility on the community recognizing the limitation
of having only one access point to the park and the community.
5. In addition to the traffic study, a security plan and community crime impact study needs to be addressed before
any commitment to build is authorized.
6. There was no limit on the use of the facilities even though the community specified that they wanted a passive
neighborhood park and not a community center.
Herb Stark
Rancho Palos Verdes
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>
Monday, July 31, 2017 8:19 AM
cc
Matt Waters; CityClerk; CityManager; Cory Linder; ed hummel; 'Herb Stark'; Jessica Vlaco
FW: Ladera Linda Master Plan Update
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers:
I am writing to you regarding the upcoming August 1st CC Regular Business Agenda Item #4, "Ladera Linda Park."
First, I would like you to know l have attended all workshops in regards to Ladera Linda Park, both as a part of the overall parks
master plan process, and also specifically in the past year for Ladera Linda. l do appreciate that parks staff has worked hard on
their proposal and recommendations in trying to balance a myriad of inputs from interested residents. Their job has not been
easy.
On Sunday, April 30, 2017, I submitted an email follow-up from the final workshop earlier the prior week. I expressed general
support for concept A over concept Bat that time, subject to an understanding of the cost of the project (which was not a part
of any of the workshops).
In reading the current recommended concept A-1 that the Parks Department is bringing for your consideration on August 1st, l
see the total project cost is estimated at $7.6M. There is some discussion of possible financing involved. Furthermore, there is
inclusion of a second gate on Forrestal Drive, 28 additional parking spots on Forrestal Drive, and discussion of an "equestrian
trailer turnaround" on Forrestal Drive.
I have the following questions that l hope the City Council will carefully ponder as they determine whether to proceed with this
project as recommended by staff or not:
1. Is an investment of $7.6M into this small, local community oriented park a wise use of taxpayer funds? Are there more
important infrastructure related needs that should be coming before this?
2. Does the City have existing funds, in cash reserves, to build this, or would the city be relying on some sort of financing or
joint venture (P3) to fund it? If the latter, have the benefits and risks of such financing been fully addressed and presented to
the residents?
3. Has the City done a traffic study and parking plan for the entire Ladera Linda area, taking into account additional uses in the
immediate area (AYSO soccer, proposed "equestrian" usage, reserve trailhead access, increased park/community center usage,
etc)? Traffic has been a big problem at times in this area, which only has one access point from PVDS thru residential side
streets. (My personal opinion is that the more parking you provide, the more people you attract, and so I am a strong
proponent of only providing LIMITED parking opportunities and restricting parking on residential streets -when the lot is full,
it's full and people will need to go elsewhere!)
4. Why are brand new elements being added to the concept AFTER the public workshops and then being directly inputted to
the council for approval (i.e. compare concept A and A-1 and note the 28 additional parking spaces on Forrestal, the second
gate, the promotion of equestrian use, etc)?
I would respectfully ask that the City Council set aside either accepting, or rejecting, staff's recommendation until some of the
questions above have been addressed and communicated to the residents of RPV.
Thank you for your consideration
1 L/
Gary Randall
Ladera Linda Resident
Resident of RPV for over 40 years
From: City of Rancho Palos Verdes [mailto:listserv@civicplus.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 4:45 PM
To: grapecon@cox.net
Subject: Ladera Linda Master Plan Update
View this in your browser
adcrn Linda Master Pllrn
Cutmcll
The RPV City Council will be considering the recommended design for Ladera Linda Park on August I st. The meeting is at 7pm at
Hesse Park, which is located at 29301 Hawthorne Blvd. The recommended design is the result of extensive Public outreach, particularly
from residents living near to Ladera Linda.
Click below to access the Aug I st Agenda (listed under Regular Business item 4).
August 1st City Council Meeting Agenda
Click below to see the Recommended Design:
Recommended Ladera ljnda Park Design
Click below to see the Staff Report:
August 1st Laclera Linda Master Plan Staff Rep01i
For more information please click here to access the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Website.
Please contact Recreation and Parks Senior Analyst Matt Waters at (310) 544-5218 or email at mattw({i)rpvca.gQ_y_ with any questions.
This message from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is being sent to subscribers of this list who might be interested in its
content. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message, it is a non-monitored email address. If there is
contact information it will be included in the body of the message.
This message has been sent compliments of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. If you do not wish to continue receiving
these messages, please accept our apologies, and unsubscribe by visiting our website at:http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx
Please note, The City of Rancho Palos Verdes will not sell or give your e-mail address to any organization without your
explicit permission.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Ladera Linda Park Master Plan on www.rpvca.gov. To
unsubscribe, click the following link:
Unsubscribe
2