20190319 Late CorrespondenceFrom: So Kim
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, March 19, 2019 4:48 PM
Nad Gv
Cc: Sharon Loveys; Debbie Landes; CityCierk
Subject: FW: GH (non)compliance of CUP -late correspondence
Hi Nadia,
I will have your Powerpoint available for you. Next time, please submit it before 3PM. As for your request for late
correspondence, I copied the City Clerk's office.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www. rpvca .gov
(310) 544-5222
From: Nad Gv [mailto:nvgeorg@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 4:37 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Sharon Loveys <sharon.loveys@yahoo.com>; Debbie Landes <dlbodesi@fastmail.com>
Subject: GH (non)compliance of CUP-late correspondence
So Kim,
Could you please include my presentation as late correspondence for the tonight City Council meeting? I hope you
can make it available for the big screen. I appreciate your help with this!
Thank you very much! Let me know if you have any trouble downloading it.
Nadia (Vista Verde)
CUP_ GH_noncomplience_March_19 _2019.pptxl
0 ~
1
Dear city council,
I'm bringing up few facts showing that GH is not in compliance with the CUP.
Once again, GH is doing maintenance job outside of the CUP hours. There were
2 very loud workers before 9AM on Febr. 22nd, cleaning and painting the fence.
I could hear them through closed doors and windows, very unpleasant, as they
are so close to our terraces. See attached pictures and video.
Also, it was mentioned many times, that GH needs to use smaller bulldozers/
machines to dig the graves and howl the soil to minimize the impact on us. Till
today no change on that. See pictures below (form March 16, 2019).
The burial area on the roof of the Pacific terrace mausoleum created constant
visitor flow, which disturbs us on a daily basis, even after operation hours of the
cemetery, because it's hard for the security to check that area driving below on
the road. More often than not people don't use the stolen from us view, they sit
towards our building. Thus, any movement from our side triggers a look towards
us, which interferes with our lives.
Seems like GH can get away with almost anything they want and these violations
are considered minor but they annoy us on a daily basis!
Notice also, the plants which were supposed to cover the cement wall to make it
less ugly looking to us are down after the rain.
Note that no "Findings" were ever made that earth interment development of these
unidentified (for development) sub-areas was consistent with the Master Plan (and these
sub-areas were "developed in 2007 and 2011, well in advance of any purported
"amendment" (never sought) by Green Hills to the Master Plan (which they say occurred in
2015 ... without direct quote or citation to the purported "amending" language);
Witnessing what is going on with the developing of the rest of the cemetery spaces I believe
there will be much more unhappy neighbors around the cemetery ...
It's your job to prevent that.
Thank you for your time!
Nadia Georgi eva,
Vista Verde owner
en -M 0 N N ... N "'-
..0
QJ
L..l...
c
0
tl.O c
c ,_
0
E
> ,_
ro
UJ
00 )> s: 3 OJ ::::::s ,....... ro ::::::s
OJ
::::::s
("") ro
:E
0 .,
A" ...
(/')
OJ ,.......
c .,
c..
OJ -<
This was the setting put very early in the morning, waiting for the ceremony to be held
hours later ... Was it real ly necessary to be put there before 8 AM?
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: MARCH 19, 2019
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
_____________________________________________________________________
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight’s meeting.
Item No. Description of Material
1 Email exchange between Community Development Deputy Director
Kim and Noel Weiss
2 2017 Business License Tax Analysis
3 Letter from Anurag Sood
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, March 18, 2019**.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Emily Colborn
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\20190319 additions revisions to agenda.docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Noel Weiss <noelweiss@ca.rr.com>
Tuesday, March 19, 2019 11 :08 AM
So Kim
CityCierk; CC
Subject: Re: Green Hills Compliance Review (Sharon Loveys Response to Staff Report)
Thanks So ... very much.
Noel
(31 0) 822-0239
On 3/19/2019 11 :05 AM, So Kim wrote:
Noel
Thank you Noel.
I copied the City Clerk on this email so that your email and attachment will be added to late correspondence.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www. rpvca .gov
(310) 544-5222
From: Noel Weiss [mailto:noelweiss@ca.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 10:49 AM
To: So Kim <Sol<@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank
<John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Ken
Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Green Hills Compliance Review {Sharon Loveys Response to Staff Report)
So:
Here is Sharon Loveys' response to the Staff Report and City Attorney comments which pertain to the Green
Hills Compliance Review matter on calendar for tonight.
Thanks for circulating to the City Council members.
Noel
(31 0)822-0239
( 310) 822-0239
1
I
COMMENTS OF SHARON LOVEYS IN RESPONSE TO
STAFF REPORT & CITY ATTORNEY'S COMMENTARY
GREEN HILLS COMPLIANCE HEARING-MARCH 19, 2019
CORE LEGAL & FACTUAL PRINCIPLES:
There should be no dispute with regard to the following core facts and legal principles:
1. The City's Cemetery Zoning Code (Chapter 17.28) controls the use of the Green Hills
Cemetery property by Green Hills. The code allows for the use of the property for (I) earth
interments, (2) mausoleums for vault or crypt interments, and/or (3) columbarium for cinerary
interments. Such uses are not "by right"; they are as "permitted by conditional use permit".
(Section 17.28.030; and Section 17.28.030(A).
2. The development ofthe site was to be controlled by the provisions of a Master Plan, first
adopted in 1991 (Resolution No. 91-1) as to identified portions ofthe cemetery, and then later
amended in April, 2007 as to other identified p01iions of the cemetery (and specifically 21.21
acres of"ground burial sites" (earth interment sites) identified on the Master Plan Map in light
green shaded areas. (PC Resolution No. 2007-33).
3. Since April, 2007, Green Hills has never made any request to amend the Master Plan. [Ms.
Loveys contends that Compliance Review Hearings are not the appropriate procedural vehicle by
which to amend the Master Plan. Where there are violations which arise due to ambiguity in
interpretation, it is appropriate to clarify whether the alleged conduct does, in fact, violate the
provisions of the Master Plan. Where there are no identified violations, the provisions ofthe
Master Plan control unless amended pursuant to proper notice and consideration].
4. The Master Plan does differentiate between undeveloped areas where earth interments (the
term "ground burials" is used) are to be permitted and areas where no such "earth interment"
development is to occur. Two examples are in Master Areas 5 and 6 (See page 8 of Ms. Loveys'
response to the contentions of Ellen Berkowitz stated in Ms. Berkowitz's letter of February 4,
2019 submitted on March 14, 2019). Another example where use ofthe cemetery to inter human
remains is limited (and where a use permit is required) is Green Hills' request to inter human
remains on the roof (under the miificial grade installed on the roof) ofthe Inspiration Slope
Mausoleum (as Green Hills has acknowledged in a letter dated June 28, 2016 (attached to Ms.
Loveys' comments). Unlike the sub-areas of Master Areas 5 and 6, the Morning Light Valley and
lnspiraNon View sub-areas of Master Area 4 do not specifically authorize the development of
those sub-areas for earth interments. Ms. Loveys contends these areas are to remain undeveloped
until such time as the Master Plan has been amended to contemplate and permit such
development. At no time has the Master Plan been amended to permit the development of earth
interments on either the Morning Light Valley or Inspiration View sub-areas.
1
';.-i
'"-
5. The Morning Light Valley sub-area was "developed" by Green Hills beginning in March,
2007, as per the Plot Map recorded on April 5, 2007. The Plot Map is depicted below.
MORNING LIGHT VALLEY
LAWN CRYPTS
GREEN JIIUS MEMORIAL PARK
CEAIUE!i'r AIAP
'"0<1.<"\:t.f.l
iJOI_ TON £Mi/N££R/N6 CORPORATION
~;.> .~··.r-· ·r,,~ "'"''·~ rr /'
<',> '"'~· ·o ~ f: fo· f<'> ' .o .~o:
;.t::. '"·"' 6~!.'
'b " l'fflfli.:ll j ~ ~L-----------------------------------------------------------------------------~ ..,~
~
Morning Light Valley sub-area Plat Map dated March 7,2007, recorded with the County Recorder on
April 5, 2007. No grading permit and no "use permit" was ever issued by the City allowing for the
development of the Morning Light Valley sub-area.
2
iirt~en !tills Nl'!'JOI"'Ial Park a Cali:l'orn~a Carpora t/on In tht> Cwn ty o:l' Los
Angelt>s, Cal/:l'orn/a, does ht>re.by cer tll'y.-that th/s ls a true and corrt~ct
l'!ap shol(~ tht' survey and subdlv!slon !hto lots and plots;, o:l' tht' Nl/X1V/MJ Lltif!T
VAl.L[rcAVN CRYPTS Sect/a~ In tireen flllls Nl!i'iorlal Park. Los Angeles County,
Ca!l:l'ornla,. that sald l'JOP /s loco ted ll'est of A.lllJ/TION TO ASC£NSION SLOP£
Section as salcl Se-ct1bn /s shown on !'tap rt~cordect 4/E'S/tl.f
as .!Joe. At? #tl-f -CN:J8%5 in CMt?ti!>ry Jifap .Book .% pg 138:
saki atlcllthn to Section Is ;ncl~d In tnt? 'Z"t>r tlr/ca thn antt tlec/ara ttbn o:l'
llec:llcathn of' Ce!'N!"tt?ry Propt?rty' rt?corcled July ?a 1946! !I? .Book ?7781_ Pages
?65 and ?66 or the o:l'r/cla( record$ In the orrlcF or thF County Recor~r or LOS
Angeles Cownty_ Callf'ornkJ' that sale/ CorporP t/on has cawsed to be preparetl and
approved the ,4!ap to which thls c~:~rt/f'lca ti!> Is a:l'/lxedi tho t the Jifap cir'all'n
hert?on carrt?c tly shows the loca tlonj arrangf?rwn t and nUI'fberlng or lots ami
plots ali sltw ted Jf'lthln the boundor/es of' tireen flllls lfet'lorla/ Park In said
Cownty. as shown on recorded filet/ hbp No, ltl68R flier:/ July ?a /948_ and
flfed Nap iVO..t~96il? f'lli>d FeiJrvary 6-1953 /11 the orr lee of' the Co.un ty Recorder
or saki Countr tho t said !emu' Jf'as thereby dedca fed and /s to he used
for private cel'!etery purposes subject to the reservations. rights and
prlv;7eges set forth hi?rf?ln and 117 tht? cie'dlcatlon herein beFore rel'errecl
(lnc/ subft'ct to all rult:>s and regula tlons governing tirefm Hills Henorial
Park now In eFfect and those hereaf'ft?r acloptec/1 tho t flit? said addlt'/on to
Section Is a portion o:l' Lot MlL .Tract iVllJ/9? as p!'?r !'lap, r"t>corcfe'clln
fiook #</., Pagt?s 9/ to 9</ Inclusive o:l' "'aps, records of' Los .4ngeles Cot.Q'I ty,
Cal/:f'ornla.
The right and prlvlfege at any tl/ttt? and f.rol'l ftl<?e to tim>, to resurvt?y
t:>nlarg£1, ~/sh, rep/at, alter In shape or slze, l'Jake add'tlons tht're to,
and/or otherwise to change ali or any part or portion of' salcl M:WN/Ml LltiHT
V.4LL£Y LAVN CRYPT Section_. (/nclutY/ng fht> right to t:>sfa.bl/sll,
dose, t?lihlna t£1 or otht?rwlst? /'!Odl'f'y or chtN'Fgt? the toea tlon of ~ralls, nl'ks,
entrances or adjacent roads or drlves, or to alter or change tht? arrongel'tent
or nul"'herlng of' lots; plots. gardens. estctes or other otvl.s·ions thereof.-~ and
to I'Jit? ai?Pm:h>cl pta ts, I'U:Ips, plans or eleva tlons therf?oF; and to use the saM
ror tM t?rf?ctlon of' .bw1cilhgs;, und/or l'or any purposes or uses connected
ll't'th lnddt>n t to, or ctmvenkn t f'or thff' care, pre.serva tlon or pr~ara tlon
:f'or tht? c#.sposaf and/111" In 'U>ri?Pn t of hul'ltln deat~' bodies, and/or o flier
cel?f!>tt?ry purposes, tqgetht?r with f?aSeMnts and rights of' way over and
thr-ough .sold prel'llse.s I' or, and tM r/gh t and privilege of' Installing.,
l'falnta!nlng and opera t/ng plpellnl?s, conclults, ar dralns :f'or sprinklers;
cir'a!noge, utlfltli's, £~1ecfr/c or COI'JI'N.Inlca tkm lmes;. or lor any other
purpose ;s hereby expressly rest~rved
&££N HilLS NDfORIAL PARK
Enhanced Portion of Morning Light Valley sub-area Plot Map
3
Nt'":!t'~"" ~-.6t'
N
The Inspiration View sub-area was developed by Green Hills commencing in Apri l 13 , 2011 as
reflected in the Plot Map depicted below (signed on Apri l 13 , 2011) certifying the subdiv ision of
the Inspiration View sub-area. No grading permit and no "u se permit" was ever issued by the
City a llowin g for the development of the Inspiration View s ub -area.
OOOK ..:J...I:. PAOE .hli!-
~----
...._..t'1t•l~XO
,..k~!!~-·~ ~~
-I
.:~t:', ... ~ .... ,
I NS I·111<A '/'I ON V/HW
<;till:.\ I(//'-~ 111'1/<l/1/,11 /',1/lh-
INWfRAnot~ \\CW I..AAH CR'r1•t~
~n.t· -•o·
i i
4
,\
I
"
~"_,S!'!'A_!~OO \lfW '! __ A_l~TA ~~
Enhanced portion of Inspiration View sub-area Plot Map.
5
5 . The 2007 Master Plan Amendment was premised on a January, 2005 Master Plan Appl ication
w here Green Hills acknow ledged that the propo se d "usages " were "extensions of exist in g
cem etery use ".
Phono : Work : t 1t :;tz:z.,4o~~
Home: ( ) _____ _
Lot & Tract Numbe r· ------
Surd of J.11oot <; temont5
Expl In how lh() Sit r , \h propos d u IS i'ldeQU le In IZO and hape to
ccommod. le \flo u e
~~~ ~ -,._.~it-~~
~~ I. -~1211 :::.E.l _.l9.q \
eN. ____ -------
6
This is the Master Plan Map as it existed at the time of the Apri l, 2007 Master Plan Amendm ent.
T he blue arrows are the undesignated open space areas where no development was s hown . A lso
not shown is any development of the roof of the Inspiration S lop e Mausoleum. The Red arrows d
depict the s ub -areas in Master Area 6 and Master Area 5 where "ground burials" were to be
permitted. The li ghtly shad ed sub-areas are open space, undeveloped a reas. The darkly shaded
green areas represent already existing development as of Apri l, 2007.
Master Plan Map as it existed in Apri l, 2007.
6. At no time did Green Hills ever apply for or receive any permits (grading permits or use
permits) in connection with the development ofthe Inspiration View or Morning Light Valley
sub-areas . This fact was confirmed by way of emai l from So Kim to Noel Weiss dated February
22, 2019, reprinted below:
7
On 2/22/2019 1:56PM, ~Kim wrote:
Hi Noel,
Thank you for the clarification. For the purposes of the PRA, I provided you with all I have . There are no
applications filed by Green Hills for the requested areas. As for the interpretation of what constitutes
development and what is permitted ~ you understand the City's position on this, so I will not be
commenting in that regard.
Sincerely,
So Kim, A ICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www .rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
7. Therefore, there is no dispute that the Morning Light Valley and Inspiration v;ew sub-areas
were developed by Green Hills without the City 's having permitted said sub-areas to be
developed.
Ms. Loveys contends that the unauthorized development of these two sub-areas because they
have never been formally authorized by the City means that Green Hills is in violation of the
Master Plan. Green Hills can bring itself into compliance by "legalizing" its past conduct in
contravention of the Master Plan by applying for a variance , amended conditional use permit, or
an amendment to the Master Plan.
8. The City has a mandatory duty to enforce its zoning laws. The unpermitted use of the
Morning Dght Valley and In spiration View sub-areas of the cemetery for earth interments is not
a "legal non-conforming use ". The City 's failure to enforce its cemetery zoning laws cannot be
used as an estopped against Green Hills (Carl Schafer vs. City ofLos Angeles (2015) 27 Cal.
App. 4th 1250-City 's informally allowing residentially zoned parking lot to be used for
commercial purposes in violation ofthe City 's zoning laws does not create an equitable estoppel
against the City permitting such use. Propetty owner must apply for a variance or conditional use
permit). Any "agreement" between the City and Green Hills permitting an unlawful or
unauthorized use of the cemetery property is ultra vires and void because the City cannot
"contract away" its police powers. (Summit Media, LLC. vs . City of Los Angeles (20 12) 211
Cal.App. 41h 921 (settlement agreement between City and billboard companies which had the
City committing to refrain from taking enforcement action void as a matter of law because City
cannot contract away its police powers). See also Trancas Property Owners Association vs . City
of Malibu (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 172 (zoning laws and protocol must be respected and
enforced and cannot be deviated from by way of an agreement (informal or otherwise) (final
8
subdivision zoning map approved after agreement between City and developer void as violative
of City's zoning law and protocol).
9. A grading permit is not a substitute for a use permit. As Judge Chalfant noted in his written
ruling in the pending Superior Court litigation challenging the City's issuance of a grading
permit on the Arroyo Vista sub-area development in Master Area 5 (Loveys vs. City of Rancho
Palos Verdes (BS 172866)), "a grading permit simply is not a CUP or master plan". (Emphasis
added). Therefore, the City's protocol in issuing grading permits as being the equivalent to the
authorization to develop a given sub-area and use it for earth interments is contrary to law. To
the extent the City is using this process, the City is acting unlawfully. As noted, in the case of the
Morning Light Valley and Impiration View sub-areas, no grading permit was ever issued; and no
use permit was ever issued. There is a provision in the City's zoning code for the issuance of
"Minor Exception Permits" (Chapter 17.66), but Green Hills never applied for any such permit.
I 0. To the extent the City Attorney relies on Condition I (f) (not specifically identified as to the
timing of its passage), the City Attorney fails to acknowledge that Condition !(f) was not in
existence at the time of the development of the Morning Light Valley or Inspiration View sub-
areas.
Conclusion:
a. It is a false argument to contend, as does the City Attorney that development of each sub-area
requires amending the Master Plan each time. This is a deflective, straw-man argument. If the
Master Plan has been properly drawn and approved, then there is a standard in existence against
which to measure whether the proposed sub-area development is consistent with the provisions
of the Master Plan. That includes the clear limitations under the 2007 Master Plan, as amended,
which limits the density and intensity of the number of earth interments, as well as the location in
the cemetery where earth interments are to be developed. Rather than enforce these density and
intensity limitations, the City ignores them and says, without citation of authority, that they do
not exist. They do exist as evidenced by the precise language of PC Resolution No. 2007-33 and
Condition 1 (c) of Exhibit "B" to the 2007 Resolution reproduced below:
i.
Exhibit "B"
Conditions of Approval
Case No. ZON2003..00086
{Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery
Master Plan Revision)
This approval is a Revision to the Green Hills Master Plan, and shall be consistent
with the "Master Plan Amendment Submittal Package" booklet dated January 29,
200"7. prepared by J. Stuart Todd Inc. Specifically, the Revision allows the following:
9
c . Clarify that the number of additional ground burial sites at Green Hills !V1emorial
Park is 14,000 Double Depth Burials (28,000 interments), 400 Single Depth Burials
{400 interments), and 408 fam~y estates (9,792 interments);
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-33
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING CASE NO. ZON2003-00086
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION, GRADING PERMIT REVISION
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT), FOR A REVISION TO THE
MASTER PLAN AT GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY
LOCATED AT 27501 WESTERN AVENUE.
WHEREAS. on February 19, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-7,
certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the Green Hills Master Plan.
which called for development of the cemetery site over the next 1 00-years, and allowed for
194,340 cubic yards of grading with no import or export, re-grading of the remaining 45
undeveloped acres of the 120 acres cemetery, construction of 2.44-acres of mausoleum
buildings, 11.87-acres of burial sites, 27.21-acres of ground burial sites and 3.72-acres of
roads; and, t
b. The City Attorney 's position that all that is needed by Green Hills to develop a particular sub -
area is a grading permit is incorrect. Findings that the development use is conditionally permitted
under the City 's zoning code are mandated under Chapter 17 .60 (Conditional Use Permits) and
specifically 17.60.050. Specific "Findings" are also mandated under Section 17.76 .040(£) as
regards grading permits). Regardless , in the case of the Inspiration View and Morning Light
Valley sub-areas, no permits (grading or use) have even been issued allowing for the use of these
sub-areas for earth interments . This puts Green Hills in violation of the Master Plan. These are
violations which can be cured ; but they cannot be ignored.
c . The City 's continuing failure to exercise discretion and make the required "findings " under its
Cemetery zoning code and its general zoning code is itself an abuse of discretion . Ashburn vs.
AIG Financial Advisors, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal. App. 4 111 79,97. By ignoring its mandatory duty to
apply its cemetery zoning laws to the Morning Light Valley and Inspiration View sub-areas, the
City is abusing its discretion. By allowing sub-area development for earth interments without any
permits (grading or use) having first been obtained, the City has abused its discretion. Green
Hills is not in compliance with the Master Plan as it relates to the development of the Morning
Light Valley and Inspiration View sub-areas based on the foregoing undisputed facts. The City
Council should continue this Compliance Review hearing and permit Green Hills a reasonable
time within which it can come into compliance.
d. Saying that "earth interments are permitted throughout the cemetery" is to say nothing. Earth
interments are conditionally permitted under the City 's Cemetery Zoning law (Section
10
I7.28.030(A). Limitations on the location of earth interments have been acknowledged by both
Green Hills and the City. For example, no earth interments are to be permitted in set-back areas.
Another example is that no roof-top interments are to be permitted (assuming they are even
lawful under state law; an assumption to which Ms. Loveys does not accede). The letter of June
28, 20I6, relating to the limitations on Green Hills ability to develop the roof-top ofthe
Inspiration Slope Mausoleum specifically notes on page 2 (first paragraph) that "except for
improvements consistent with the Master Plan, or those subject to the Planning Commission, all
improvements must be reviewed by the Director to determine if they substantially comply with
the Master Plan (Condition l.k). (Emphasis added). (See page 23 of Sharon Loveys' earlier
response to the contentions made by Ellen Berkowitz).
This is inconsistent with the position taken by the City Attorney in the staff report that issuance
of a grading permit is all that is required as a procedural prerequisite to Green Hills being able to
develop unidentified and unspecified (for development) sub-areas of the cemetery for earth
interments.
e. Condition I (c) of the April, 2007 Amended Master Plan conditions was never expressly
deleted by the City Council. The Resolution (20 I5-I 02) to which the City Attorney references
does not say what the City Attorney says it says. The City Attorney fails to cite any provision of
the Resolution where the Master Plan was amended (or could be amended in the absence of
Green Hills' application to do so); or any specific language to that effect.
f. Generic use (development of identified sub-areas for earth interments) is different that the
degree or intensity or density of use. The position that because the Cemetery Zoning Code
conditionally permits earth interments does not mean that the volume, density, location, or
intensity of use of the cemetery's property for earth interments is unlimited or unconditional. The
contention that allowance of a particular use unconditionally permits an unrestricted amount of
development is inconsistent with the history of the Master Plan's creation, Green Hills own
representations when it sought and obtained conditional approval to develop the cemetery, and
otherwise defies common sense. The "development anywhere equals unrestricted development
everywhere" fallacious logical construct contradicts the basic record, is intellectually dishonest,
and ignores the City's basic planning and development implementation principles. If this
principle were correct, there would be no need for a Master Plan at all. This makes no sense.
Green Hills does not take this position when it comes to Mausoleum construction. Why,
therefore, is there any difference with respect to the development of sub-areas of the cemetery
for earth interments? As noted above, specific sub-areas of Master Areas 5 and 6 are noted as
having been authorized for "ground burials" (earth interments). These sub-areas are specifically
identified on the Master Plan Map. If Condition I (c) quoted by the City Attorney eliminated any
distinctions between where there are to be "ground burials", then why is this not noted anywhere
on the Master Plan Map? Why was the Master Plan Map never revised to incorporate such an
important (faux) amendment? The answer is that no such revision was ever contemplated by the
generic reference in Condition I (c) that earth interments were to be (conditionally) permitted
11
throughout the cemetery. If the purpose of the so-called "amendment" (Condition 1 (c) was to
allow for the unconditional development of ea1ih interments anywhere and everywhere in the
cemetery without restriction as to density or intensity of use, then wouldn't the clear purpose of
such a significant and important amendment been identified and made clear? Would not Green
Hills have sought such an amendment? The record is completely blank when it comes to Green
Hills ever having sought or applied for such a Master Plan Amendment.
To date, the City Council has never identified the factual basis upon which such a so-called
"amendment" to the Master Plan was ever sought by Green Hills or passed by the City Council
(consistent with the protocol attendant to the procuring of Master Plan Amendments). What is on
the record is Green Hills 2007 Master Plan Amendment where Green Hills represented to the
City and to the public that what it was seeking by why of a Master Plan Amendment at that time
was consistent with the original Master Plan, as approved back in 1991, except and to the extent
that it needed clarification on what was contemplated and what was to be allowed (permitted)
with respect to the (lightly shaded green) sub-areas identified on the Master Plan Map.
If Green Hills intent was to seek an unrestricted right to develop any and every sub-area of the
Cemetery with emih interments, as it wanted, when it wanted, and how it wanted, then Green
Hills would have made that point clear at that time.
Such was not the case.
Clearly there are limits on the scope of what Green Hills can do by way of development of emih
interment areas. Those limits have been ignored with regard to the Inspiration View and Morning
Light Valley sub-areas of the cemetery. That includes Green Hills ever having procured a grading
permit, assuming that a grading permit is all that is required (a contention Ms. Loveys disputes).
So even under the City Attorney's interpretation and commentary, Green Hills has failed to abide
by the City's protocol with respect to the development of these sub-areas. It is just another
example of Green Hills ignoring the City's planning law and protocol; and continuing to do what
it wants, when it wants, and how it wants. The development of the Morning Light Valley and
Inspiration View sub-areas occurred in 2007 and 2011 respectively.
It is without dispute, therefore, that Green Hills is in violation of the Master Plan. It is up to the
City Council as part of this compliance review process to identify that Green Hills is out of
compliance and propose a protocol and mechanism by which Green Hills can come into
compliance. That means continuing the hearing and giving Green Hills time to apply for an
amendment to the Master Plan "legalizing'' (after the fact) its errors and omissions; or applying
for a variance. That would include a determination of the appropriate degree of intensity and
density of use to be permitted.
Sharon Loveys renews her request that the City Council honor its duties and responsibilities
rather than continue to abide violations of the City's zoning laws and development standards.
12
2017 Business License Tax Analysis
Businesses Located Outside of RPV
Busiress Lice~s~ ~a~.··· .. · ...
Calculation. Method/·
Flat Rate
Gross Receipts
· ,·\ ·8us.iness:t.i~€r\5erax ·
<8U~fri~s~~s .c.· • .·· · ,,.. ·:;· •. ;.ll~~~rn.l~·;;:{· ' >
230 $31,123.65
74 $42,272.89
304
d.
March 18, 2019
Members of the City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
6520 Sea Cove Drive · Rancho Palos Verdes · California · 90275-5873
Te/310 803 7280 I Fax 310 541 4527
TRANSMITTED BY
E-MAIL TO:
cc@rpvca.gov
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Subject: Advisory Board Position -F AC
Dear Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro Tern, and Councilmembers,
I submitted my application for an advisory board position with the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes some months back, and was pleased to receive Ms. Colburn's e-mail of
March 12 announcing a new vacancy on the Finance Advisory Committee. I would
like to reiterate my interest for this position, and am looking forward to civic
participation in our favorite city!
Thank you for your consideration. Should you have any questions regarding my
qualifications, experience, or interests, please call or text (310) 803-7280.
Very truly yours,
Anu Sood
anu@cox.net
3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MARCH 18, 2019
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, March 19, 2019 City Council meeting:
Item No.
F
G
1
Description of Material
Emails from: Barry Chappell; Frank Glaser
Updated Attachments A (Agreement) & B (Proposal)
Email exchange between Community Development Deputy Director
Kim and: Thomas Frew and Debbie Landes; Matt Martin; Letters from:
Matt Martin; Sharon Loveys; Emails from: Noel Weiss; Joanna Jones-
Reed
Respectfully submitted,
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\20190319 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Late Carr
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, March 12, 2019 5:02 PM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Memoli
Nadia Carrasco
FW: Stop Light
From: Barry Chappell <bchap2006@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 2:01 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; larry@maizlish.com
Subject: Stop Light
For the City Council meeting 3/19/2019
I think a stoplight is needed on Via Rivera and Hawthorne Blvd. I discussed this with Larry Maizlish who lives on my
street and he has a great understanding of what type of light to use. I trust his advice.
Barry Chappell
30126 via Rivera
Rancho Palos Verdes Ca. 90275
Thanks,
Barry Chappell
1 f
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, March 18,2019 8:53AM
CityCierk
FW: Traffic signal for Via Rivera and Hawthorne
From: Tums541 gmail <tums541@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 12:31 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: larry@maizlish.com
Subject: Traffic signal for Via Rivera and Hawthorne
A few years ago I worked very hard to have the city put in a traffic signal at Via Rivera and Hawthorne.
I was very active at that time in city affairs and worked on it for many years to try to get the signal put
in. At that time the rule was if you had enough accidents or deaths at that intersection you had a chance
of getting a signal. We were in the top of the list when I approached the city Council to try to get the single
put in.
When I finally had a meeting with Mayor Wolowicz. he said." Glaser give me $280,000 and I will think
about it." Although I could've raised some of the money but the arrogance of me I'll think about it made me
stop.
I gave up at that time but I'm very pleased that is been considered again because the situation actually has
gotten worse. I consider the issue of safety the primary issue even though having to wait to make a safe
turn from Vita Rivera onto Hawthorne is inconvenient due to the school traffic. Cars coming up and down
Hawthorne Boulevard are speeding. My wife stop driving due to her being scared of making that turn. She
was not alone.
Please put that light live in and accidents will be prevented and lives may be saved.
Thanks,
Frank Glaser
30184 Via Rivera, RPV
1 f
01203.0006/524815.8 1
CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
By and Between
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
and
GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES, INC.
A-1
01203.0006/524815.8
AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND
GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (herein “Agreement”) is made and
entered into this 19th day of March, 2019 by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a
California municipal corporation (“City”) and Geo-Logic Associates, Inc., 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 CONSULTANT
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
01203.0006/524815.8 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 California Labor Law.
If the Scope of Services includes any “public work” or “maintenance work,” as those
terms are defined in California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. and California Code of
Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq., and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more,
Consultant shall pay prevailing wages for such work and comply with the requirements in
California Labor Code section 1770 et seq. and 1810 et seq., and all other applicable laws,
including the following requirements:
(a) Public Work. The Parties acknowledge that some or all of the work to be
performed under this Agreement is a “public work” as defined in Labor Code Section 1720 and
that this Agreement is therefore subject to the requirements of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1
(commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code relating to public works contracts
and the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”)
implementing such statutes. The work performed under this Agreement is subject to compliance
monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Contractor shall post job site notices, as prescribed by
regulation.
(b) Prevailing Wages. Contractor shall pay prevailing wages to the extent
required by Labor Code Section 1771. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the
prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any
interested party on request. By initiating any work under this Agreement, Contractor
acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) determination of
the prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Contractor shall post a copy of the same at each job
site where work is performed under this Agreement.
(c) Penalty for Failure to Pay Prevailing Wages. Contractor shall comply with
and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment
of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The
Contractor shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar
A-3
01203.0006/524815.8 3
day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the
DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to
this Agreement by Contractor or by any subcontractor.
(d) Payroll Records. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the
provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Contractor and each subcontractor to:
keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as
specified in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as
provided by Section 1776; and inform the City of the location of the records.
(e) Apprentices. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions
of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations Title 8,
Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects.
Contractor shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all
apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Contractor shall
provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program.
Within sixty (60) days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Contractor and each of
its subcontractors shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice
hours performed under this Agreement.
(f) Eight-Hour Work Day. Contractor acknowledges that eight (8) hours labor
constitutes a legal day’s work. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code
Section 1810.
(g) Penalties for Excess Hours. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by
the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess
hours. The Contractor shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each
worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Contractor or by any
subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work
more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day and forty (40) hours in any one calendar week
in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code.
Pursuant to Labor Code section 1815, work performed by employees of Contractor in excess of
eight (8) hours per day, and forty (40) hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public
work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than one
and one-half (1½) times the basic rate of pay.
(h) Workers’ Compensation. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700
provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its
employees if it has employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code
Section 1861, Contractor certifies as follows:
“I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require
every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of
this contract.”
A-4
01203.0006/524815.8 4
Contractor’s Authorized Initials ________
(i) Contractor’s Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor
who will perform work under this Agreement, Contractor shall be responsible for such
subcontractor’s compliance with Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720)
of the California Labor Code, and shall make such compliance a requirement in any contract with
any subcontractor for work under this Agreement. Contractor shall be required to take all actions
necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor’s compliance,
including without limitation, conducting a review of the certified payroll records of the
subcontractor on a periodic basis or upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to
pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Contractor shall diligently take
corrective action to halt or rectify any such failure by any subcontractor.
1.5 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.
1.6 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.
1.7 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.
1.8 Further Responsibilities of Parties.
A-5
01203.0006/524815.8 5
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.
1.9 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.
1.10 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 One Hundred Twenty One Thousand Eighty Six Dollars
($121,086) (the “Contract Sum”), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to
Section 1.9.
A-6
01203.0006/524815.8 6
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
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.
A-7
01203.0006/524815.8 7
ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
3.1 Time of Essence.
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
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 one year
from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit
“D”). City, in its sole discretion, may extend the Term for one additional one-year term.
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:
A-8
01203.0006/524815.8 8
Neven Matasovic, PhD, PE, GE Principal
(Name) (Title)
Alan Witthoeft, PE, GE Project Engineer III
(Name) (Title)
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 cont ract 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 Ron Dragoo, City Engineer, or Nasser Razepoor, Associate
Civil Engineer, or such 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.
A-9
01203.0006/524815.8 9
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
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.
Without limiting Consultant’s indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of
any services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own
expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts
described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
(a) General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in
an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily
injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that
has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language
will not be accepted.
(b) Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile
insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury
and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with
Services to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-
A-10
01203.0006/524815.8 10
owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each
accident.
(c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall
maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection
with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any
policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this
Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than
three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement.
(d) Workers’ compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers’
Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at
least $1,000,000).
(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.
(a) Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to
City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation
endorsement for workers’ compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be
approved by City’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification
of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any
time.
(b) Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the
duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to
property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services hereunder
by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subConsultants.
(c) Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be
primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required
to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of
primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be
endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-
contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall
be called upon to protect it as a named insured.
(d) City’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required
under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced,
A-11
01203.0006/524815.8 11
City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium
paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient
to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(e) Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance
company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance
or that 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 VI (or larger)
in accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by
the City’s Risk Manager.
(f) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured
pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or
appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow
Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to
waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery
against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of
its subConsultants.
(g) Enforcement of contract provisions (non-estoppel). Consultant
acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform
Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the
City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
(h) 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.
(i) Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or
broker and insurers to provide to City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for
nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each
required coverage.
(j) Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be
endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers
shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any
excess/umbrella liability policies.
(k) Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages
required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting
endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
A-12
01203.0006/524815.8 12
(l) Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for
all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of
liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.
(m) Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants,
subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in
the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements
required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes
all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements
of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with Consultants,
subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
(n) Agency’s right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any
time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by
giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change
results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate
Consultant’s compensation.
(o) Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to
and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated,
lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these
specifications unless approved by City.
(p) Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant’s performance
under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required
liability policies.
(q) Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be
necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.
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
indemnitors’ reckless or willful misconduct, or arising 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-13
01203.0006/524815.8 13
(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.
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
A-14
01203.0006/524815.8 14
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
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 of Information.
(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
A-15
01203.0006/524815.8 15
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 attorney’s 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.
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.
A-16
01203.0006/524815.8 16
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 liabi lity 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.
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
905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.
7.7 Liquidated Damages.
Since the determination of actual damages for any delay in performance of this
Agreement would be extremely difficult or impractical to determine in the event of a breach of
A-17
01203.0006/524815.8 17
this Agreement, the Contractor and its sureties shall be liable for and shall pay to the City the
sum of five hundred dollars ($500) as liquidated damages for each working day of delay in the
performance of any service required hereunder. The City may withhold from any monies payable
on account of services performed by the Contractor any accrued liquidated damages.
7.8 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.
7.9 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.
7.10 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
deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or
not such action is prosecuted to judgment.
A-18
01203.0006/524815.8 18
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. § 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.
A-19
01203.0006/524815.8 19
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., Rancho Palos Verdes, 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.
A-20
01203.0006/524815.8 20
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
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]
A-21
01203.0006/524815.8 21
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on
the date and year first-above written.
CITY:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
municipal corporation
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
City Attorney
CONSULTANT:
GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
Name: James A. Kelsey, P.G.
Title: President
By:
Name: Gary L. Lass
Title: Secretary
Address: 3150 Bristol Street, Suite 210
Costa Mesa, California 92626
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 ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE
INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR
OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S BUSINESS ENTITY.
A-22
01203.0006/524815.8
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On __________, 2019 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 DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
___________________________________
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________
DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
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.
A-23
01203.0006/524815.8
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On __________, 2019 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who se 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 DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
___________________________________
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________
DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
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.
A-24
01203.0006/524815.8 A-4
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. Consultant will perform the following Services: Consultant will complete the design
of the realignment of Palos Verdes Drive South from east end of the boundary of
the Portuguese Bend Landslide and Klondike Landslide to approximately 8 00
feet west of the east end of the landslide, to create a more desirable path of travel
for 35 mph vehicular traffic. The Consultant will be required to produce full
design for realignment of the roadway, including conceptual design, Civil
drawings including plan and profile, striping, construction notes and
specifications, with a detailed construction cost estimate. Furthermore, the
Consultant will provide hydraulic and hydrology analysis, and structural
analysis and design of a under roadway drainage culvert which will allow
currently trapped area drainage to be conveyed to the south (ocean side) of the
road. The design should take into consideration the need for a geotechnic al
report and recommendations, survey, environmental clearance, and any
required approval and permitting from local, State and Federal Agencies.
Summary of the Tasks:
Perform survey, and review existing records and field inventory with the design
team.
Perform geotechnical and environmental field services and provide reports.
Develop a conceptual design and a geotechnical design report.
Develop detailed design drawings, including Civil and Structural design of the
culvert, along with construction notes, special provisions, technical specifications,
and engineer’s estimate.
Provide support during bid and permitting process.
Develop all final project deliverables and as-built drawings.
Update project Survey.
Provide updates for the City’s website specific to design services and public
outreach meetings.
Attend up to 4 meetings including project kickoff meeting, committee and
progress meetings (selection of design concept, design ideas presentation, etc.)
Services by Task
Task 1 – Survey and Document Review
To establish a basis for geotechnical evaluation and preliminary design, Consultant will
commission an as-built and topographic survey for the relevant segment of Palos Verdes
Drive South. The survey, which will evaluate locations of existing City right-of-way,
visible utilities, traffic lanes, extents of pavement, and embankment topography, will be
performed under the supervision of a California registered Land Surveyor. The survey
will include location of selected existing survey monuments in the area and will establish
deformation monitoring.
A-25
01203.0006/524815.8 A-5
Concurrent with the surveying portion of the project, Consultant will review existing
records (to be provided by the City). Such records will include construction plans, traffic
plans, stormwater drainage and other utility plans (e.g., sanitary sewer, potable water,
etc.), and land records (e.g., property lines for right-of-way and adjoining parcels).
Records received from the City will be provided to the surveyor for inclusion in the
project base map.
Task 2 - Geotechnical and Environmental Field Services
Consultant will perform a limited geotechnical field exploration to evaluate existing
subgrade soil conditions at selected locations along the existing alignment and proposed
realignment. Consultant will coordinate with the City and with subcontractors to plan the
work, obtain an encroachment permit, and execute the field work. Consultant will
perform a subsurface exploration consisting of drilling, logging, and sampling of up to 3
small-diameter borings along the project alignment to a depth of up to approximately 30
feet below the ground surface, or refusal, whichever is shallower. The borings will be
logged by our field representative. Bulk samples and driven samples (i.e., split-spoon
sampler) will be obtained at selected intervals from the borings. Measurements of the
existing pavement section (i.e., AC and base thickness) will be taken where pavement is
encountered, and bulk samples of base material will be taken, if practicable. The borings
will be backfilled with on-site soils, and existing pavement will be patched with rapid-set
concrete. Selected soil samples will be delivered to Consultant’s laboratory for testing.
The planned laboratory testing includes R-value, sieve analysis, and in-situ moisture
content and density for the subgrade materials and sand equivalent for the base material.
In addition, Consultant will commission a biological survey and report of the area to be
impacted by the proposed realignment of Palos Verdes Drive South. The biological
survey will document the general biological conditions as well as the location and extent
of visible covered species and/or habitat covered under the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural
Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). The report
of this biological survey will include an impact analysis to document the extent of
covered species and habitat that might be impacted by the proposed road realignment and
identify relevant Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures from the
NCCP/HCP.
Task 3 – Conceptual Design and Geotechnical Evaluation
Consultant will develop conceptual design drawings, approximately 10 percent design
completion. Key features of the conceptual design concept will include an alignment
arcing to the north of the existing centerline and a lateral expansion of the existing
roadway embankment. The realignment and lateral expansion will provide increased
flexibility to the City for accommodating the ongoing movement of the Portuguese Bend
Landslide until further mitigation measures may be implemented. Additionally, the
A-26
01203.0006/524815.8 A-6
embankment design may incorporate geosynthetic products to improve deformation
characteristics and/or reduce the loads imparted to the embankment.
Upon completion of the as-built and topographic survey, Consultant will develop a set of
preliminary plan sheets (i.e., demolition plan, grading plan, paving plan, and striping
plan), at a 1”= 20’ scale, showing the realignment design concept. The plans will not
include relocation of existing utilities, such as the sanitary sewer along the south side of
Palos Verdes Drive South. This preliminary plan set and the hydraulic and hydrology
analysis, and the structural analysis and design of the drainage culvert, corresponding to
approximately 60 percent design completion, will be submitted to the City for approval.
Design and engineering evaluation will be halted pending City approval of the 60 percent
design concept, or receipt of written City requested revisions.
After receipt of City approval of the preliminary design concept, Consultant will proceed
with geotechnical engineering evaluations for the proposed realignment. Evaluations will
include analysis of “local” slope stability of the new embankment using a two-
dimensional (2D) slope stability model as well as analysis of the embankment’s effect on
“global” stability of the Portuguese Bend Landslide using the three-dimensional (3D)
slope stability model.
In addition to the preliminary plan sheets, Consultant will prepare geotechnical design
report, which will document the engineering evaluations performed. This letter report
will be prepared under the supervision of a California registered Geotechnical Engineer
and will be internally peer-reviewed by the Consultant.
Task 4 – Detailed Design and Engineer’s Estimate
Based on the results of our engineering evaluations, Consultant will prepare a set of full-
size construction plans (22 inches x 34 inches), as well as a package of technical
specifications and special provisions, for the proposed realignment measures. Key
features of the design (i.e., demolition plan, grading plan, paving plan, striping plan,
hydraulic and hydrology analysis, and the structural analysis and design of the drainage
culvert, construction notes, technical specifications, and special provisions) will be
developed to approximately 90 percent completion level and submitted to the City for
review and comment. Following comment at the 90 percent level, Consultant will
finalize these plans, notes, specifications, and special provisions.
The final design package will be signed and stamped by a California registered
Professional Engineer. The package will be delivered to the City in both printed and
electronic formats (PDF and DWG, as applicable).
For the City’s reference during the bidding process, Consultant will develop an engineer’s
estimate for the proposed realignment during preparation of the 90 percent design
construction plans, including construction quantities and construction quality assurance
program costs. This will be an “order-of-magnitude” cost estimate for planning purposes
and will be developed based on a combination of consultant in-house cost data for recent
A-27
01203.0006/524815.8 A-7
similar construction projects, publicly available data (e.g., Caltrans, FHWA), and
discussions with one or more contractors.
Task 5 – Bid and Permitting Support
Upon the City’s acceptance of the 100% design stage plans, technical specifications, and
special provisions, Consultant will provide support to the City for development of a bid
package. The City will provide an example Bid Document Package and will provide
front-end Technical Specifications (including the format for the Notice to Bidders, Table
of Contents, General Provisions, Special Provisions, and format for Bid and Contract
sections). Consultant will develop the Special Provisions section of the bid package by
combining project-specific special provisions with the City’s Special Provisions. Project
Plan Sheets will be referenced in the Bid Documents as an attachment. The assembled
Bid Document Package will be provided to the City in both printed and electronic format
(i.e., PDF, Microsoft Word, and AutoCAD, as appropriate). Consultant will also provide
support during Bid process, including response to Requests for Information (RFI) from
prospective bidders.
Consultant will also assist the City with obtaining Take Authorization. Consultant will
confirm that the realignment of Palos Verdes Drive South is one of the Covered Activities
included in the NCCP/HCP, and provide the necessary environmental documents.
Accordingly, Consultant will work with their subconsultants to provide an analysis to
document consistency of the project with the relevant habitat and species conservation
goals and requirements, and applicable impact limits and Habitat Impact Avoidance and
Minimization Measures. Upon completion of the consistency analysis, Consultant will
coordinate with the City, Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy and wildlife agencies
to initiate requests for concurrence on the consistency analysis and the necessary approval
related to the NCCP/HCP. Consultant will confirm that the realignment of Palos Verdes
Drive South is a covered activity that was analyzed in the EIR and NEPA Environment al
Assessment for the NCCP/HCP.
Task 6 – Meetings
Consultant will attend, in person, up to four meetings during the design, pre-bid, bid, and
permitting phases of the project. These meetings will include one pre-design kickoff
meeting and up to three committee and progress meetings (e.g., selection of design
concept, design ideas presentation, etc.).
II. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible work
products to the City.
A. Deliverables (work products that will, per State DCA requirements, be
stamped/sealed by PE, GE, CEG, and or PG) include:
1. Survey/Environmental/Geotechnical Report (Draft and Final)
A-28
01203.0006/524815.8 A-8
2. Design Package
3. Technical Specifications (90% and 100%);
4. Design Drawings (60%, 90% and 100%);
5. Special Provisions (90% and 100%);
6. Engineer's Estimate (90% and 100%); and
7. Bid Package (Draft and Final).
8. The final (100%) level work products will be signed/sealed.
Deliverables will be developed based upon topographic, geologic,
hydrogeologic, and other information provided by the City.
B. Project construction schedule
C. Project cost estimate
D. Responses to RFIs
E. Consultant will ensure that all sites where field work is conducted are left in the
same or better condition as before the work, and that any dangerous condition
created by any field work is mitigated at the conclusion of the work. Consultant
shall promptly remove all equipment, trash, and other indications of any field
work.
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:
A. Consultant will work with City staff throughout the project to prepare and submit
documents, images, and maps, meeting notes, progress reporting,
communications, event timelines, etc., suitable for upload to the City website for
public review. Consultant will prepare the website updates on at least a monthly
basis for the duration of the project including submittals after public meetings and
outreach events.
B. Project status summary reports (weekly)
C. Updated design project schedule
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.
A-29
01203.0006/524815.8 A-9
V. Consultant will utilize the following personnel to supervise the design team:
A. N. Matasovic, Principal-in-Charge
B. Alan Witthoeft, Project Manager
A-30
01203.0006/524815.8 B-1
EXHIBIT “B”
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
Added text is indicated in bold underline, and deleted text is indicated in strikethrough.
I. Section 7.7, Liquidated Damages, is deleted in its entirety.
A-31
01203.0006/524815.8 C-1
EXHIBIT “C”
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Consultant shall perform the Services in accordance with the bid schedule attached
herewith as Exhibit “C-1.”
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.
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 1.9.
IV. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of
a valid invoice. 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.
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 the Contract Sum as
provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement.
VI. The Consultant’s billing rates for all personnel are attached as Exhibit C-1.
A-32
01203.0006/524815.8 C-2
EXHIBIT “C-1”
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION BY TASK
A-33
01203.0006/524815.8 D-1
EXHIBIT “D”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Consultant shall perform all Services timely in accordance with the schedule
attached hereto as Exhibit “D-1.”
II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the
following dates.
A. See Exhibit “D-1”
III. The City Council may approve extensions for performance of the services in
accordance with Section 3.2.
A-34
01203.0006/524815.8 D-2
EXHIBIT D-1
SCHEDULE OF WORK
Consultant will begin all services upon receipt of written Notice to Proceed, and according to the
following preliminary schedule:
• Task 1 Target Completion Late March 2019
• Task 2 Target Completion Mid April 2019
• Task 3 Target Completion Late April 2019
• Task 4 Target Completion Late May 2019
• Task 5 Target Completion June 2019
• Task 6 Target Completion Late May 2019
A-35
3150 Bris
March 14
Proposal
City of Ra
Departm
30940 Ha
Rancho P
Attention
REVISED
PALOS V
RANCHO
Dear Mr.
GENERAL
In accor
Associate
submit t
proposed
submitte
the City o
ongoing
intersect
complex.
coordina
to mitiga
PROJECT
The align
project (
although
Bend Lan
road. W
traffic ha
interest,
stol Street, Suite
4, 2019
No. SO19.1
ancho Palos
ment of Publi
awthorne Bo
Palos Verdes
n: Mr. Nasse
PROPOSAL
ERDES DRIV
O PALOS VER
. Razepoor:
L
dance with
es, Inc. (GLA
this revised
d roadway
ed versions.
of Rancho P
deformatio
tion with th
. The cons
ted with a s
ation of Port
T UNDERSTA
nment of th
on the orde
h with an app
ndslide. This
We understa
azards which
as well as a
e 210 • Costa M
062.PR
Verdes
c Works
oulevard
s, California 9
er Razepoor,
FOR ENGIN
VE SOUTH RE
RDES, CALIFO
your Requ
A; parent co
proposal t
realignment
The realign
alos Verdes
on (i.e., lat
he easterly
ulting servic
separate pro
uguese Bend
ANDING
e existing P
er of 1,000
proximately
s relatively s
nd that the
h it poses. A
conceptual
Mesa, California 9
90275
PE
EERING CON
EALIGNMEN
ORNIA
uest for Pro
ompany of D
to provide
t. This ver
nment is pro
(City), Califo
eral offset)
limit of the
ces propose
oject, award
d Landslide c
Palos Verdes
feet in leng
“S”‐shaped
sharp curvat
City plans
Attachment 1
sketch of th
92626 • T 714.4
NSULTING S
NT
oposal (RFP
Daniel B. Ste
engineering
rsion of GLA
oposed for a
ornia. The p
) of Palos
e Portugues
ed here will
ed to Danie
complex inst
s Drive Sout
gth) is gene
curvature n
ture results
to realign t
1 shows the
e proposed
465.8240 • F 90
ERVICES (RE
P) dated Fe
ephens & As
g consulting
A’s proposa
a portion of
purpose of t
Verdes Dri
se Bend La
be perform
el B. Stephen
tability.
th which is o
rally oriente
near the eas
in a hazard
his portion
segment of
realignmen
09.626.1233 •
EVISION 7)
ebruary 4,
ssociates, In
g services
al supersede
Palos Verde
this project i
ive South n
ndslide, an
med in conju
ns & Associa
of interest f
ed in an eas
sterly limit o
to traffic alo
of the road
f Palos Verde
t.
www.geo‐logic.
2019, Geo‐
nc.) is please
in support
es all previ
es Drive Sou
is to mitigat
near the r
active land
unction / cl
ates, Inc., re
for the prop
st‐west dire
of the Portug
ong the two
d to mitigate
es Drive Sou
com
‐Logic
ed to
of a
ously
uth in
te the
oad’s
dslide
osely
elated
posed
ection
guese
o‐lane
e the
uth of
B-1
Proposal No. S
March 2019
This segm
portion o
underlain
moving i
are movi
offset wh
We also
maintena
segment
landslide
project b
City, as it
GLA unde
Drive Sou
of the ro
speed of
embankm
which w
maintena
Landslide
GLA APP
General
GLA will
phases o
geotechn
drawings
We prop
alignmen
City.
Task 1 –
To estab
as‐built a
survey, w
extents o
a Califor
survey m
Concurre
provided
SO19.1062.PR |
ment of Pa
of the alignm
n by the Kl
n a southwe
ing at signifi
hich produce
o understan
ance costs
traversing
e, including t
by itself is un
t will not slo
erstands tha
uth by realig
oad, which w
f up to appr
ment constr
ill address t
ance costs m
e movement
ROACH AND
provide m
of the Palos
nical, enviro
s and specifi
pose the f
nt, develop a
Survey and
lish a basis f
and topogra
which will ev
of pavement
rnia register
monuments i
ent with the
d by the City
Palos Verdes Dr
los Verdes
ment is unde
ondike Cany
esterly direc
icantly diffe
es the appro
d, based o
(on the ord
the Portugu
the propose
nlikely to im
w the move
at the City in
gning the roa
will mitigate
roximately 3
uction, pavi
the short‐te
may be sub
t.
D SCOPE OF
ultidisciplina
Verdes Driv
onmental,
cations and
ollowing ap
a realignme
Document R
for geotechn
aphic survey
valuate loca
t, and emban
red Land Su
n the area a
e surveying
y). We antic
rive South, City o
Drive South
erlain by the
yon Landslid
ction toward
rent rates, t
oximately “S”
on conversa
der of $600
uese Bend
ed realignme
mmediately r
ment of the
ntends to ad
adway. The
traffic hazar
35 miles per
ng, and dra
erm traffic h
stantially re
SERVICES
ary professi
ve South rea
and constr
will provide
pproach to
nt design pa
Review
nical evaluat
y for the re
tions of exis
nkment topo
rveyor. Th
nd will estab
portion of t
ipate such r
of Rancho Palos
h is underla
e Portuguese
de. In this
d the Pacific
there is offs
”‐shaped cu
ations with
0,000 per ye
Landslide (f
ent area). H
result in sign
e underlying
ddress the re
e realignmen
rds for vehic
r hour. GLA
inage impro
hazards. In
educed thro
onal service
alignment.
uction sup
e support to
evaluate e
ackage, and
tion and pre
levant segm
sting City rig
ography, wil
e survey w
blish deform
the project,
records will
Verdes, Californ
in by two a
e Bend Land
area the t
Ocean. How
et along the
rvature in th
you, that
ear) for the
from weste
However, w
nificant main
landslides.
elatively sha
nt will result
cles traversi
A’s prelimina
ovements du
the longer
ugh mitigat
es during th
We will coo
port compo
o the City du
existing con
provide pre
eliminary des
ment of Palo
ght‐of‐way,
ll be perform
will include l
mation monit
GLA will re
include con
nia
active lands
slide, and th
two landslid
wever, as th
e landslide c
he roadway.
the City in
e Palos Ver
rly to easte
e note that
ntenance co
rp curvature
in a more g
ng the align
ary design c
uring the rea
r term, GLA
ion of the P
he design,
ordinate sur
onents to
uring pre‐bid
nditions alo
e‐bid and bi
sign, GLA wi
os Verdes D
visible utilit
med under t
ocation of
toring.
view existin
struction pla
slides. The
he east port
des are gene
he two lands
contact. It i
.
ncurs substa
rdes Drive S
erly limits o
the realign
ost savings t
e of Palos Ve
gradual curv
ment at a d
oncept envi
alignment p
anticipates
Portuguese
pre‐bid, and
rvey, civil de
develop d
d and bid ph
ong the ex
id support to
ill commissio
Drive South.
ties, traffic l
he supervisi
selected ex
ng records (t
ans, traffic p
2
west
ion is
erally
slides
s this
antial
South
of the
ment
o the
erdes
ature
esign
isions
hase,
s that
Bend
d bid
esign,
esign
hases.
isting
o the
on an
The
anes,
on of
isting
to be
plans,
B-2
Proposal No. S
March 2019
stormwa
records (
City will b
Task 2 ‐ G
GLA will
condition
will coor
Field exp
performe
GLA will
explorati
the prop
or refusa
samples
from the
delivered
analysis,
In additio
the prop
general b
habitat c
Habitat C
impact a
by the
Minimiza
Task 3 –
For plann
preparat
Attachm
concept
expansio
lateral ex
moveme
impleme
improve
Upon co
prelimina
1”= 20’ s
existing u
SO19.1062.PR |
ter drainage
(e.g., proper
be provided
Geotechnica
perform a
ns at selecte
dinate with
ploration wil
ed.
perform a
ion will cons
osed realign
al, whicheve
and driven
e borings. Th
d to GLA’s la
and in‐situ m
on, GLA will
osed realign
biological co
covered und
Conservatio
nalysis to do
proposed r
ation Measu
Conceptual
ning purpose
ion of this
ent 1 to this
include an
on of the ex
xpansion wi
nt of the
nted. Addit
deformation
ompletion o
ary plan she
scale, showin
utilities, suc
Palos Verdes Dr
e and other
rty lines for
to the surve
al and Enviro
limited geo
ed locations
the City and
l not be per
subsurface
sist of drilling
nment to a d
r is shallowe
samples (i.
he borings w
boratory for
moisture co
commission
nment of Pal
nditions as w
der the Ran
n Plan (NCC
ocument the
oad realign
res from the
Design and
es, GLA deve
s proposal.
s proposal.
alignment
xisting road
ll provide in
Portuguese
tionally, the
n characteris
of the as‐b
eets (i.e., dem
ng the realig
h as the san
rive South, City o
utility plans
right‐of‐way
eyor for incl
onmental Fi
otechnical fi
along the e
d subcontrac
rformed in t
exploration
g, logging, a
depth of up
er. The bori
e., split‐spo
will be backf
r testing. Th
ntent and de
n a biologica
los Verdes D
well as the lo
ncho Palos V
CP/HCP). T
e extent of c
nment and
e NCCP/HCP
Geotechnic
eloped conc
Conceptu
As shown i
arcing to t
way emban
ncreased fle
Bend Land
embankme
stics and/or
uilt and to
molition pla
gnment desi
nitary sewer
of Rancho Palos
(e.g., sanita
y and adjoin
usion in the
eld Services
ield explora
existing align
ctors as nee
the existing
n with a du
nd sampling
to approxim
ings will be
oon sampler
illed with on
he planned la
ensity.
al survey an
Drive South.
ocation and
Verdes Natu
he report o
covered spe
identify re
.
cal Evaluatio
eptual sketc
ual sketches
n Attachme
he north o
nkment. W
xibility to th
dslide until
nt design m
reduce the
opographic
n, grading p
gn concept.
r along the
Verdes, Californ
ary sewer, p
ing parcels)
project base
s
ation to eva
nment and
eded to plan
roadway, a
uration of o
g of up to 3 s
mately 30 fee
logged by o
r) will be ob
n‐site soils.
aboratory te
nd report of
The biologi
extent of vi
ural Commu
of this biolo
cies and hab
levant Hab
on
ches of the p
s prepared
nt 1, key fe
of the existi
We anticipate
he City for a
further mi
ay incorpora
loads impar
survey, GLA
plan, paving
The plans w
south side o
nia
potable wate
. Records re
e map.
aluate existi
proposed re
n and execut
nd traffic co
one working
small‐diame
et below the
ur field repr
btained at s
Selected so
esting includ
the area to
cal survey w
isible covere
unity Conser
ogical survey
bitat that m
itat Impact
proposed rea
to date a
atures of th
ng centerlin
e that the
accommoda
itigation me
ate geosynth
rted to the e
A will deve
plan, and st
will not inclu
of Palos Ver
er, etc.), and
eceived from
ng subgrade
ealignment.
te the field w
ontrol will n
g day. The
ter borings a
e ground sur
resentative.
elected inte
il samples w
des R‐value,
o be impacte
will documen
ed species an
rvation Plan
y will includ
ight be impa
Avoidance
alignment d
are enclose
he current d
ne and a la
realignment
ting the ong
easures ma
hetic produc
embankment
elop one se
triping plan)
ude relocati
rdes Drive S
3
d land
m the
e soil
GLA
work.
ot be
field
along
rface,
Bulk
ervals
will be
sieve
ed by
nt the
nd/or
n and
de an
acted
and
uring
ed as
esign
ateral
t and
going
ay be
cts to
t.
et of
), at a
on of
outh.
B-3
Proposal No. S
March 2019
This prel
submitte
City appr
to be inc
After rec
geotechn
to analys
stability
Portugue
additiona
evaluatio
model w
note that
before a
landslide
that cons
negligible
anticipat
stabilizat
realignm
realigned
City. To
roadway
within th
or “non‐r
In additio
which w
prepared
internally
Task 4 –
Based on
construct
special p
demolitio
specifica
completi
design w
drainage
north of
this pote
SO19.1062.PR |
iminary plan
ed to the Cit
roval of the
orporated in
ceipt of Cit
nical enginee
sis of “local”
model. Eff
ese Bend La
al (i.e., in
on to incorpo
hich will be
t the Factor
ddition of n
e is in or ne
struction of
e impact o
te that the
tion). Furth
ent of the ro
d roadway s
o assist the
segment,
he realigned
routine”) de
on to the p
will docume
d under the
y peer‐revie
Detailed De
n the result
tion plans (2
provisions, fo
on plan, gr
tions, and
on level and
will include
design will
the realigne
entially impo
Palos Verdes Dr
n set, corresp
ty for appro
60 percent
n subsequen
ty approval
ering evalua
slope stabil
fects of the
andslide wi
addition to
orate this ne
developed d
of Safety (F
new roadwa
ar a state o
the new ro
n “global”
roadway r
hermore, as
oadway seg
egment will
City in eva
GLA will pr
segment. A
esign require
preliminary p
nt the eng
supervision
wed in acco
esign and En
ts of our e
22 inches x
or the prop
rading plan
special pro
d submitted
stormwater
include eva
ed roadway
ounded stor
rive South, City o
ponding to a
val. Design
design conc
nt submittals
of the pre
ations for the
ity of the ne
e new emba
ll not be c
GLA’s pro
ew embankm
during GLA’s
FS) of the exi
y embankm
of “failure,”
oadway emb
stability of
ealignment
s movement
ment, we un
l be address
aluating land
rovide recom
As of this pro
ement for th
plan sheets,
ineering ev
n of a Califo
rdance with
gineer’s Est
ngineering
34 inches),
posed realign
n, paving p
ovisions) w
to the City
r drainage d
aluation of t
segment an
mwater (e.g
of Rancho Palos
approximate
and engine
cept and rec
s.
eliminary de
e proposed
ew embankm
ankment co
considered
posed servi
ment into th
s concurrent
isting Portug
ment) is likely
resulting in
bankment, in
the Portug
will provid
t of the lan
nderstand im
sed through
dslide move
mmendation
oposal, we a
e proposed
, GLA will p
valuations p
ornia registe
GLA’s peer
imate
evaluations,
as well as a
nment meas
plan, stripin
will be deve
for review a
design for t
the quantity
nd will provi
g., civil and
Verdes, Californ
ely 60 perce
eering evalu
ceipt of writ
esign conce
realignment
ment using a
onstruction
in this eva
ices, which
he three‐dim
t landslide m
guese Bend
y in the vici
the observ
n the most f
guese Bend
de a benefit
ndslide is an
mpacts of th
regular ma
ement and
ns for instru
re not aware
construction
repare one
performed.
ered Geotec
review polic
, GLA will p
package of
sures. Key
g plan, co
eloped to
and comme
the realigne
y of stormw
de recomme
structural d
nia
nt design co
ation will be
tten City req
ept, GLA w
t. Evaluatio
a two‐dimen
on “global”
luation. G
do not in
mensional (3
mitigation de
Landslide co
inity of 1.0
ved ongoing
favorable sc
Landslide
t with resp
nticipated to
e ongoing m
intenance p
its effects o
umentation
e of addition
n.
geotechnic
This letter
chnical Engi
cy.
prepare one
f technical s
features of
nstruction
approximat
nt. In addit
ed roadway
water potent
endations fo
esign of a c
ompletion, w
e halted pen
quested revi
ill proceed
ns will be lim
nsional (2D)
” stability o
LA recomm
clude this
3D) slope sta
esign project
onfiguration
(i.e., the ex
movement
cenario, will
(i.e., we do
pect to land
o continue
movement o
performed b
on the reali
and monit
nal (i.e., “spe
al design re
r report wi
neer and w
e set of ful
pecifications
f the design
notes, tech
tely 90 pe
tion, the det
y segment.
tially impou
or conveyan
culvert below
4
will be
nding
isions
with
mited
slope
f the
mends
item)
ability
t. We
n (i.e.,
isting
) and
have
o not
dslide
after
n the
y the
igned
toring
ecial”
eport,
ill be
will be
ll‐size
s and
(i.e.,
hnical
rcent
tailed
This
unded
nce of
w the
B-4
Proposal No. S
March 2019
realigned
the 90 pe
The final
Engineer
DWG, as
For the C
the prop
including
an “orde
combina
available
Task 5 –
Upon the
provision
provide a
(includin
Provision
section o
Special P
attachme
format (i
during B
bidders.
GLA will
assume (
Palos Ve
commiss
and spec
and Hab
commen
City in re
We are a
CEQA re
budget,
proposed
initial stu
South is
for the N
CEQA an
SO19.1062.PR |
d roadway s
ercent level,
l design pac
r. The packa
applicable).
City’s referen
posed realig
g constructio
r‐of‐magnitu
tion of GLA
e data (e.g., C
Bid and Per
e City’s acce
ns, GLA will
an example
g the forma
ns, and form
of the bid
Provisions.
ent. The ass
.e., PDF, Mic
Bid process,
also provid
(i.e., we are
rdes Drive S
ion a subco
cies conserv
bitat Impact
ts from the
esponding to
also prepare
quirements.
we will pre
d are consis
udy envision
a covered a
NCCP/HCP. B
alysis.
Palos Verdes Dr
segment, if s
GLA will fin
ckage will b
age will be d
.
nce during t
gnment duri
on quantities
ude” cost es
A in‐house
Caltrans, FHW
mitting Sup
ptance of th
provide sup
Bid Docume
at for the No
mat for Bid a
package by
Project Pl
sembled Bid
crosoft Wor
including r
de limited a
e not aware
South is one
onsultant to
vation goals
t Avoidance
City, and w
o occasional
ed to provid
. At the Cit
epare an in
tent with th
ned as of thi
activity that
Based on the
rive South, City o
such an opti
alize these p
be signed an
delivered to
he bidding p
ng preparat
s and constr
stimate for p
cost data
WA), and dis
port
he 100% des
port to the
ent Package
otice to Bidd
and Contract
combining
an Sheets
d Document
rd, and Auto
response to
ssistance to
of informat
e of the Cov
evaluate co
and require
e and Minim
ill provide a
inquiries fro
de, for addit
ty’s request
nitial study
he impacts a
s proposal a
was analyze
e informatio
of Rancho Palos
ion is select
plans, notes,
nd stamped
the City in p
process, GLA
tion of the
ruction quali
planning pur
for recent
scussions wi
sign stage pl
City for deve
e and will pr
ders, Table o
t sections).
project‐spe
will be refe
Package w
CAD, as app
Requests f
o the City fo
tion suggest
ered Activit
onsistency o
ements, and
mization Me
ssistance, to
om local resi
tional fee, li
t, and upon
to docume
anticipated i
assumes tha
ed in the EI
n available a
Verdes, Californ
ted by the C
, specificatio
by a Califo
printed and
A will develo
90 percent
ity assuranc
rposes and w
similar con
ith one or m
ans, technic
elopment of
rovide front‐
of Contents
GLA will de
ecific specia
erenced in
ill be provid
propriate). G
for Informa
or obtaining
ting otherw
ies included
of the proje
d to docum
easures. W
o a reasonab
dents.
imited assist
authorizatio
nt that the
in the NCCP
at the realign
R and NEPA
at this time,
nia
City). Follow
ons, and spe
ornia registe
electronic f
op an engine
t design con
ce program c
will be devel
nstruction p
more contrac
cal specificat
f a bid packa
‐end Technic
, General Pr
evelop the S
al provisions
the Bid Do
ded to the C
GLA will also
tion (RFI) f
g a Take Au
wise) that the
d in the NCC
ct with the
ent applicab
We will add
bly practicab
tance to the
on for addit
e impacts o
P/HCP EIR. T
nment of Pa
A Environme
we do not a
wing comme
ecial provisio
ered Profess
formats (PDF
eer’s estimat
nstruction p
costs. This w
loped based
projects, pu
ctors.
tions, and sp
age. The Cit
cal Specifica
rovisions, Sp
Special Provi
s with the
ocuments a
City in elect
o provide sup
from prospe
thorization.
e realignme
CP/HCP. GLA
relevant ha
ble impact
dress one s
ble extent, t
e City to ad
tional scope
f the proje
The scope o
alos Verdes
ental Assess
anticipate fu
5
ent at
ons.
sional
F and
te for
plans,
will be
d on a
blicly
pecial
ty will
ations
pecial
isions
City’s
as an
tronic
pport
ective
We
ent of
A will
abitat
limits
et of
o the
dress
e and
ct as
of the
Drive
ment
urther
B-5
Proposal No. S
March 2019
Task 6 –
GLA will
bid, and
pre‐desig
design co
based on
time for
be billed
SCHEDUL
We will b
City envi
the RFP,
during th
and cons
purposes
T
T
T
T
T
T
This tent
negotiati
response
schedule
KEY PRO
GLA prop
members
Resumes
team me
recent fir
Key GLA
Principal
Dr. Mat
SO19.1062.PR |
Meetings
attend, in p
permitting
gn kickoff m
oncept, desi
n a meeting
meeting atte
on a time‐a
LE
begin our se
sions an agg
the City pla
he summer
struction sc
s, we propos
ask 1 Target
ask 2 Target
ask 3 Target
ask 4 Target
ask 5 Target
ask 6 Target
tative sched
ion, subcon
es, inclemen
e is subject to
JECT PERSO
poses to co
s, with addit
s for key GL
embers’ exp
rm experien
Personnel
l‐in‐Charge
asovic is a
Palos Verdes Dr
erson or by
phases of th
eeting and u
ign ideas pr
g duration o
endance, inc
nd‐material
rvices upon
gressive sche
ns to approv
of 2019. G
chedule to t
se the follow
t Completion
t Completion
t Completion
t Completion
t Completion
t Completion
dule assume
ntractor / s
nt weather,
o change, at
ONNEL
ommit Dr. N
tional suppo
LA team me
perience and
ce with simi
(Consultant
registered
rive South, City o
teleconfere
he project.
up to three c
esentation,
of four hour
cluding trave
s basis in ac
receipt of w
edule for the
ve the comp
LA will ende
the extent
wing tentativ
n Late M
n Mid Ap
n Late Ap
n Late M
n June 20
n Late M
es an imme
subconsultan
or other po
t GLA’s discr
Neven Matas
ort by GLA st
mbers are e
d capabilities
lar projects
’s Primary R
Geotechni
of Rancho Palos
nce, up to fo
We anticipa
committee a
etc.). At th
s, including
el time, beyo
cordance wi
written Notic
e planned re
pleted design
eavor to acc
reasonably
ve schedule:
arch 2019
pril 2019
pril 2019
ay 2019
019
ay 2019
diate projec
nt availabil
otential sou
etion, to acc
sovic and M
taff, subcon
enclosed in
s are provid
are enclose
Representat
cal Enginee
Verdes, Californ
our meeting
ate that thes
and progres
he City’s req
round‐trip
ond the four
ith GLA’s pro
ce to Procee
ealignment d
n in May 201
commodate
practicable
ct start and
ity, permitt
rces of dela
commodate
Mr. Alan Wit
sultants, an
Attachment
ded below.
d in Attachm
tive) – Neve
er (Californ
nia
gs during the
se meetings
s meetings (
quest, GLA’s
travel time.
r‐hour durat
oject fee sch
d. GLA unde
design and c
19 and to be
the City’s a
. For preli
d no delays
ting, review
ay. The pro
delays.
tthoeft as k
d subcontra
t 2. Brief su
Selected ex
ment 3.
en Matasov
ia) with ov
e design, pre
s will include
(e.g., selecti
estimated f
. Any addit
tion assume
hedule.
erstands tha
construction
egin constru
aggressive d
iminary plan
due to con
w and com
oposed tent
key project
actors as nee
ummaries o
xamples of G
vic, PhD, PE
ver 30 yea
6
e‐bid,
e one
on of
fee is
tional
d will
at the
. Per
uction
esign
nning
ntract
ment
tative
team
eded.
of key
GLA’s
E, GE:
rs of
B-6
Proposal No. S
March 2019
professio
in the ar
explorati
Project M
Witthoef
geotechn
transport
quality a
landfill d
deep and
Key Subc
Surveyin
Corporat
California
services
Surveyor
Nevada,
following
Environm
firm serv
the imple
Policy Ac
laws, Env
portfolio
clients w
recreatio
projects
areas.
FEE ESTIM
Our geot
rates for
with Dan
related t
project e
described
cost estim
in Attach
personne
SO19.1062.PR |
onal experie
reas of geot
ion, analysis
Manager (C
ft is a reg
nical and ge
tation geot
ssurance mo
esign, and e
d shallow fou
consultants:
ng ‐ Cal Va
tion founded
a. The com
throughout
rs and 40 tot
Oregon, Ut
g certificatio
mental ‐ Env
ving Californ
ementation
ct (NEPA), C
vicom Corpo
reflects a b
with reside
on, and rest
in both the
MATE
technical co
GLA person
niel B. Steph
o the Portug
expenses wil
d above, ou
mate by tas
hment 4. A
el, and hour
Palos Verdes Dr
nce. Over th
technical an
, design, pro
Consultant’s
gistered Ge
eoenvironme
echnical en
onitoring. H
earthworks p
undations, a
:
da Surveyin
d in 1989 w
mpany is a l
the Wester
tal employe
tah, and W
ons: SBE, MB
vicom Corpo
ia with awa
of the Califo
lean Water
oration has
road range o
ential, comm
oration proj
natural and
onsulting ser
nnel will be
hens & Asso
guese Bend
l be billed w
ur estimated
k and a list o
Also include
ly rates for t
rive South, City o
he past 25 y
nd earthqua
oject manage
s Alternate
otechnical
ental consu
ngineering, g
He has evalu
projects and
and embankm
ng, Inc.: C
with offices in
land survey
rn United St
es on staff a
ashington. T
BE, and DVBE
oration: En
rd‐winning l
ornia Environ
Act (CWA),
successfully
of experienc
mercial, ed
jects. The p
d urban envi
rvices will b
based on th
ociates, Inc.
Landslide m
with a 10 per
d fee for the
of assumptio
ed in Attach
the project.
of Rancho Palos
years, Dr. Ma
ke engineer
ement, perm
Representa
Engineer (
lting experi
geotechnica
uated static
d has designe
ment fills.
Cal Vada Su
n Corona, Lo
ing firm tha
ates. Cal V
and is licens
The Compa
E.
nvicom Corp
land plannin
nmental Qua
and other n
y completed
ce, as it prov
ducational/
professional
ronments o
be provided
hose previou
dated Dece
mitigation. S
rcent markup
e proposed t
ons used to
hment 4 is
Except as s
Verdes, Californ
atasovic has
ring, with h
mitting, and
ative) – Ala
California)
ence. His
al field inve
and seismic
ed numerou
urveying is
os Angeles,
at provides
ada Surveyi
sed to do bu
ny is also a
poration is a
ng consultati
ality Act (CE
national, sta
d thousands
vides service
institutiona
services pro
of California’
on a time‐a
usly approve
ember 18, 2
Subconsulta
p added. Ba
tasks is $12
develop the
a tentative
specifically p
nia
been practi
ands‐on inv
sponsored r
an Witthoef
with 10 y
project exp
estigation, a
c stability fo
us earth‐reta
a privately
San Diego,
professiona
ng has six P
usiness in Ar
a diverse bu
an environm
ion since 19
QA), Nation
ate, and loca
of projects
e to private a
al, utility,
ovided by E
s coastal, va
and‐materia
ed by the Ci
2018, for co
nt, subcontr
ased on the
1,086. A br
e cost estim
e breakdow
provided for
icing in Calif
volvement in
research.
ft, PE, GE:
years of div
perience inc
and constru
or transporta
aining struct
y held Calif
and San Ra
al land surv
Professional
rizona, Califo
usiness with
mental consu
972. As expe
al Environm
al environm
s. The comp
and public s
mining, en
Envicom app
alley, and hi
als basis. H
ity in its con
onsulting ser
ractor, and o
scope of ser
reakdown o
mate are prov
n of hours,
r in this prop
7
fornia
n site
Mr.
verse
ludes
uction
ation,
tures,
fornia
mon,
eying
Land
ornia,
h the
ulting
erts in
mental
mental
pany’s
ector
nergy,
ply to
llside
ourly
ntract
rvices
other
rvices
f this
vided
GLA
posal,
B-7
Proposal No. S
March 2019
this cost
ready, ho
NOTIONA
We unde
budget o
experien
range wh
We note
therefore
We antic
pavemen
planning
following
E
P
G
D
C
T
We note
“order‐of
and/or p
purpose.
“order‐of
near com
DATA/IN
Upon au
informat
D
co
U
T
SO19.1062.PR |
estimate d
owever, to p
AL CONSTRU
erstand base
of approxim
ce with simi
hich might b
e, however,
e, accurate c
cipate that
nt, geosynth
purposes, w
g:
arthwork
avement
Geosynthetic
Drainage
QA
otal Notiona
e this notion
f‐magnitude
recision. W
We note
f‐magnitude
mpletion.
NFORMATIO
uthorization
ion:
DIR Project ID
ompliance;
Underground
raffic index a
Palos Verdes Dr
oes not inc
provide this s
UCTION COS
ed on our rev
mately $900
ilar projects,
e considered
that at this
cost estimat
elements o
etics, draina
we anticipat
cs
al Cost
nal cost brea
e estimate,”
We recommen
also that, a
e” constructi
N REQUEST
of the p
D for the pu
d utility infor
and existing
rive South, City o
lude regulat
service on a
ST BREAKDO
view of the
0,000 for t
, we anticipa
d reasonable
time no de
ion for the p
of the cons
age, and con
te that the b
$300,00
$180,00
$300,00
$ 30,00
$ 90,00
$900,00
akdown sho
or estimate
nd that this
s part of th
ion cost esti
roposed sc
rposes of el
rmation (if a
g pavement s
of Rancho Palos
tory interfac
time‐and‐m
OWN
RFP that the
he propose
ate that this
e for a const
sign exists f
project is cur
struction pr
nstruction q
breakdown o
00
00
00
00
00
00
ould not be
e customarily
notional cos
he scope of
mate will be
ope of wo
ectronic cer
vailable); an
section (if pa
Verdes, Californ
ce or respon
materials bas
e City anticip
ed realignm
notional co
truction proj
for the prop
rrently impo
roject are l
uality assura
of construct
construed a
y prepared t
st breakdow
services co
e developed
ork, we wo
rtified payro
nd
avement des
nia
nses to com
sis at additio
pates a notio
ment. Base
nstruction b
ject of the s
posed constr
ossible.
ikely to inc
ance (CQA).
tion costs m
as an “engin
to a similar
wn not be re
vered in GL
d when the r
ould requir
ll reporting
sign is reque
mments. W
onal fee.
onal constru
ed on our
budget is wit
scope envisio
ruction and
clude earthw
For prelim
may resembl
neer’s estim
level of acc
lied upon fo
LA’s proposa
oadway des
e the follo
(eCPR) and
ested).
8
e are
uction
prior
thin a
oned.
that,
work,
minary
e the
mate,”
uracy
or any
al, an
sign is
owing
labor
B-8
Proposal No. S
March 2019
CLOSURE
GLA appr
to workin
Sincerely
Geo‐Logi
Alan F. W
Project E
Neven M
Principal
714.465.
Attachm
• A
• A
• A
• A
SO19.1062.PR |
E
reciates the
ng with you.
y,
ic Associate
Witthoeft, PE
Engineer III
Matasovic, Ph
8240 / nmat
ents:
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Palos Verdes Dr
opportunity
s, Inc.
E, GE
hD, PE, GE
tasovic@geo
1: Realignm
2: Organizat
3: GLA Proje
4: Cost Estim
rive South, City o
y to provide
o‐logic.com
ent Concept
tional Chart
ect Experien
mate Task Br
of Rancho Palos
this proposa
tual Sketche
and Resume
ce
reakdown an
Verdes, Californ
al for this pr
es
es of GLA Pro
nd Assumpti
nia
roject, and w
oject Person
ions
we look forw
nnel
9
ward
B-9
Realig
Att
gnment
tachme
Concep
ent 1
ptual Skketchess
B-10
3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626geo-logic.com│657.218.4708ISSUED FOR REVIEWB-11
3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626geo-logic.com│657.218.4708ISSUED FOR REVIEWB-12
3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626geo-logic.com│657.218.4708ISSUED FOR REVIEWB-13
annd Resu
Att
Organi
umes of
tachme
izationa
f GLA P
ent 2
al Chart
Project P
t
Personnnel
B-14
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDESNasser Razepoor, PEAssociate Civil EngineerPRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE& ENGINEERING QA/QCNeven Matasovic, Ph.D., PE, GECivil DesignJake Russell, PECaleb Miller, PEJorge AmayaGeotechnical EngineeringNeven Matasovic, Ph.D., PE, GEAlan Witthoeft, PE, GEPUBLICSTAKEHOLDERSSubconsultants / SubcontractorsCal Vada SurveyingEnvicom CorporationDrilling SubcontractorPROJECT MANAGERAlan Witthoeft, PE, GEB-15
Neven Matasovic, PhD, PE, GE
Principal |714.465.8240 | nmatasovic@geo-logic.com
Dr. Matasovic is a Registered Geotechnical Engineer (California) with over 30
years of professional experience. He is a Principal based in GLA’s Costa Mesa,
California office. Over the past 25 years, Dr. Matasovic has been practicing
across the United States in the areas of geotechnical and earthquake
engineering, with hands-on involvement in site exploration, analysis, design,
project management, permitting, and sponsored research. He is an
author/co-author of over 100 technical publications, including the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance document on geotechnical
earthquake engineering design guidance for highway facilities, and, most
recently of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
synthesis document on Practices and Procedures for Site-Specific Evaluation
of Earthquake Ground Motions that was published by the Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies. Dr. Matasovic is a lead reviewer
for the “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG SP 117”
(Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California). Dr.
Matasovic is a developer of a non-linear seismic site response analysis
program, D-MOD (one of the five programs used by NEHRP 2003).
Dr. Matasovic is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Soil Dynamics Committee, a member of the Transportation Research Board
(TRB) Geoseismic Subcommittee (AFF50) and was the recipient of the 2001
Prakash Foundation award for excellence in geotechnical earthquake
engineering.
Key Project Experience
La Pata Avenue Gap Closure, San Juan Capistrano, California.Dr. Matasovic
served as Engineer of Record for the Geotechnical investigation and
evaluation is support of the proposed extension of the La Pata Avenue Central
Segment. The Central Segment traverses a Holocene landslide deposit that is
approximately 0.6 miles long and up to 300 feet thick. The landslide deposit is
within the Capistrano formation, widely regarded as southern California’s
most unstable geologic formation. Scope of services called for an execution of
a focused site investigation program that included geologic mapping,
geophysical measurements (surface refraction and in-hole geophysics),
drilling, trenching, sampling, and geotechnical laboratory testing of
representative landslide deposit material. The work further included
interpretation of site groundwater conditions and development of basal shear
plane geometry. One of the objectives of scope of work was to demonstrate
the stability of an ancient landslide deposit after grading for the proposed
road improvements.
Badger Avenue Bridge Replacement, Long Beach, California.The bridge is
located in the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) complex, within the Wilmington oil
field “settlement bowl.” This well-known “settlement bowl” was caused by
long-time oil exploration activities in the area. The Badger Avenue Bridge is
one of the many local structures damaged by excessive settlement. The bridge
pier rehabilitation design called for pier encapsulation in a sheet pile
EDUCATION
PhD, Geotechnical
Engineering, 1993
University of California, Los
Angeles
Master of Science,
Geotechnical Engineering,
1986
University of Zagreb, Croatia
Bachelor of Science, Civil
Engineering, 1983
University of Zagreb, Croatia,
PROFESSIONAL
REGISTRATIONS
Geotechnical Engineer,
California, No. GE2557
Professional Engineer,
California, No. C55861
Professional Engineer,
Alaska, No. CE9659
Professional Engineer, Hawaii,
No. PE18301
OTHER
Diplomate, Geotechnical
Engineering, No. D.GE 1380
B-16
Neven Matasovic, PhD, PE, GE
Page 2
geo-logic.com
cofferdam, removal of soft material within the encapsulated area, driving of high-capacity, wide-flange steel
piles within the cofferdam, sealing the cofferdam bottom with concrete using a high-density aggregate,
cofferdam dewatering, and encasing each pair of existing piers in a structural concrete shell. The project
requirements called for an uninterrupted bridge and shipping channel during construction. Dr. Matasovic was
Engineer of Record for the project. The work was done in accordance with the Caltrans requirements for seismic
design.
Flathead River Bridge, Montana.Dr. Matasovic and his team provided a specialty technical support to SK
Geotechnical of Billings Montana. The support was required to assess if remedial measures against soil
liquefaction are required to construct bridge abutments for the Flathead River Bridge in Flathead County,
Montana (3 miles northwest of Bigfork). The following evaluations were performed by the team for the
intermediate approach to the bridge (Bent 1) and Bents 2 and 3: (i) site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard
assessment; (ii) development of design ground motions; (iii) total- and effective-stress site response analyses;
and (iv) seismic deformation analyses. Dr. Matasovic also reviewed draft geotechnical report prepared by SK
Geotechnical and assisted with response to regulatory comments.
Seattle-Tacoma Airport MSE Wall, Static and Seismic Stability Review, Seattle, Washington.The West MSE
Wall was a proposed 150-ft high retaining wall intended to prevent the expansion of the runway embankment
from encroaching on Miller and Walker Creeks located at the foot of the project site area. As retaining walls of
this height and construction are rare, especially in seismically active regions, a thorough review and critique of
the stability analyses was required. Dr. Matasovic was responsible for the review of the soil strength testing
program, liquefaction analysis methodology employed, pseudo-static stability analyses, probabilistic seismic
hazard analyses, and deformation analyses using finite difference modelling (program FLAC). The review
resulted in a series of letters providing recommendations for revised and/or expanded interpretation and
analyses of the geotechnical engineering data to enhance the performance of the wall and embankment under
both static and seismic conditions.
La Pata Avenue Road Distress, San Juan Capistrano, California.Geotechnical Engineer of Record for
investigation of a cause of the La Pata Avenue road distress. The distress was caused by re-activation of an
ancient landslide which was initiated by grading for a residential development at the toe of the slope. Work
included distress monitoring (observation and surveying), installation of a slope inclinometer, processing and
interpretation of inclinometer data, back-analysis of observed conditions, and forward analysis in support of
development of landslide mitigation measures.
Sunshine Canyon Road, Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall, Sylmar, California.Dr. Matasovic was the design
engineer for a Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining wall system. This MSE retaining wall system was
designed and constructed adjacent to Sunshine Canyon Landfill within the City of Los Angeles (City) right of way
and was subject to approval and inspection by the City Department of Public Works. This was one of the first
such walls approved by the City of Los Angeles. The design was based upon stability evaluations with MSEW. The
CQA services included in-situ nuclear density testing of reinforced backfill soil, monitoring of installation of
precast concrete elements and reinforcing materials, and monitoring of construction of back of wall gutter and
drain system. Dr. Matasovic reviewed and sealed the CQA report for this project.
Lopez Canyon Road Geotechnical Services, Lake View Terrace, California.Dr. Matasovic was responsible for
geotechnical services at Lopez Canyon Road over a three-year period. The work included supervision of in-
grading geologic mapping, post-earthquake investigation of a landslide behind an on-site office complex, design
of a drilled pier/soldier pile retaining wall for stabilization of an active landslide area, and foundation design for
a liquid storage facility. Dr. Matasovic also helped install and monitor two groundwater observation wells,
B-17
Neven Matasovic, PhD, PE, GE
Page 3
geo-logic.com
worked with the lead geologist to identify active fault traces within an Alquist-Priolo special studies zone, and
assessed the suitability of local and imported borrow soils for soil buttress construction at the project site.
Mukilteo Multi-Modal Ferry Terminal, Mukilteo, Washington.The proposed Mukilteo Multi-Modal Ferry
Terminal will be constructed along the north shore of Mukilteo. It will include facilities such as a main terminal
building (concrete trestle), a vehicle transfer span, pedestrian overhead loading, and wingwalls, hence the
design is subject to both the IBC 2012 and AASHTO code requirements. Dr. Matasovic and his team provided
technical support, including expert review and consultation to KPFF Consulting Engineers of Seattle,
Washington. The work was related to development of site-specific design ground motions (subduction and
near-field events), specialty geotechnical analyses that included development of nonlinear material properties,
and nonlinear and effective-stress site response analyses with D-MOD2000 (www.GeoMotions.com) and PLAXIS
(www.plaxis.com).
The National Academies-Sponsored Project: Guidance on Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water
Pressure Generation (NCHRP 12-114).The project scope is to perform a rigorous benchmarking study of 1-D
nonlinear software with pore water pressure generation and dissipation. The study is limited to commercially-
available software. The results of this study will not, however, be limited to benchmarking of software. The
study will also provide answers to commonly asked questions, such as: (i) How accurately can a nonlinear
effective-stress analysis program simulate actual phenomena? (ii) What is a proper way to use these programs in
engineering practice? (iii) Which site-specific input parameters are required, at a minimum, for analyses (e.g., for
site characterizations, constitutive models, seismic loading / input motions etc.)? (iv) What are the capabilities
and limitations of commercially-available programs and to what extent and for what problems/geosystems have
they been validated? (v) What is the process of model setup? and (vi) How to interpret and use the results of
nonlinear effective-stress modeling? This is an ongoing project. Dr. Matasovic serves as a Project Manager and
a Co-Principal Investigator on this project.
The National Academies-Sponsored Project: Site Response Analysis in Transportation Engineering Practice - a
TRB Survey.This was a project based upon an on-line survey sponsored by the Transportation Research Board
(TRB) of the National Academies (NAS) on the current state of development of tools, techniques, and practices
for performing site response analysis. The core participants of the survey were select Departments of
Transportation (DOTs) of states affected by seismicity, collectively referred to as the T-3+ states, and
engineering firms involved with DOT projects. The processed results of the survey provide an insight into the
manner in which site response analyses are currently performed, how material parameters and design ground
motions are selected, which site response programs are used in DOT practices, and how results of site response
analyses are interpreted in contemporary geotechnical earthquake engineering practice for highway facilities in
T-3+ states.
FHWA–Sponsored Project: Seismic Design Manual.Dr. Matasovic served as the second co-author and assistant
Project Manager for the preparation of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Geotechnical Engineering
Circular No. 3 –Design Guidance: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering for Highways. This two-volume circular
goes into detail on seismic hazard assessment, development of design ground motions, site response analysis,
liquefaction potential evaluation, evaluation of impacts of soil liquefaction on deep foundations, seismic slope
stability analyses, and seismic design of deep and shallow foundations and retaining walls for federal highway
projects. The circular was used as the basis for a 2½ -day training course on Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering taught by the authors of the guidance document. The training course was presented over a 10-year
period (ongoing) under the auspices of the National Highway Institute (NHI). The participation is restricted to
staff of state highway (transportation) departments.
B-18
Neven Matasovic, PhD, PE, GE
Page 4
geo-logic.com
Publications (samples below)
The following list illustrates Dr. Matasovic’s recent publications in the areas of geotechnical and earthquake
engineering. A complete list of over 100-refereed publications is available upon request. PDF-s of most of Dr.
Matasovic’s publications can be downloaded from www.researchgate.net/profile/Neven_Matasovic/publications
and https://independent.academia.edu/NevenMatasovic.
Kavazanjian, E., Jr., Wu, X, Arab, M. and Matasovic, N.(2018). “Development of a Numerical Model for
Performance-based Design of Geosynthetic Liner Systems,Geotextiles and Geomembranes,Vol. 46, Issue 2,
pp. 166-182,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.11.005
Matasovic, N.and Zekkos, D. (2017), “Modulus Reduction and Damping Curves for Landfill Covers,” In:
Geotechnical Frontiers 2017: Seismic Performance and Liquefaction, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 281, pp. 101-108.
Matasovic, N.(2014). “Earthquakes and Geosynthetics in Mining.”Keynote Presentation Abstract, Proc.
Geosynthetics Mining Solutions 2014. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 1 p.
Groholski, D.R., Hashash, Y.M.A., and Matasovic, N.(2014). “Learning of Pore Pressure Response and Dynamic
Soil Behavior and from Downhole Array Measurements”.Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
Elsevier. Vol. 26, Issues 61 – 62, pp. 40-56.
Matasovic, N., Conkle, C., Witthoeft, A. Stern, A., Hadj-Hamou, T. (2013). “Back Analysis of Landslide Deposit
Basal Failure Plane Residual Shear Strength”. In:Challenges and Recent Advances in Geotechnical and
Seismic Research and Practice. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 232, pp. 471-480.
Matasovic, N.(2013). “Site Response: 1D Time Domain Analyses”. In:Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering,
edited by Michael Beer, Edoardo Patelli, Ioannis Kougioumtzoglou and Ivan Siu-Kui Au., Springer.
Matasovic, N.and Hashash Y.M.A. (2012). “Site Response Analysis in Transportation Engineering Practice – a
TRB Survey”. Proc. GeoCongress 2012. Oakland, California. March 25-29.
Kavazanjian, E. Jr., Arab, G. M., and Matasovic, N.(2011). “Seismic Analysis of Heap Leach Pad Liner Systems”.
Proc. 5th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Santiago, Chile. CD ROM Paper
No.: SEIKA.
Arab, G M., Kavazanjian, E. Jr., and Matasovic, N.(2010). “Nonlinear Time-Domain Analysis of a Sliding Block on
a Plane,” Proc. 5th International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
and Soil Dynamics. San Diego, California. CD ROM Paper 4.08.
Susilo, K.,Matasovic, N.and Johnson, R.S. (2009b). “Important Considerations, Opportunities, and Strategies for
Implementing Infiltration Practices as Stormwater BMPs”. Proc. 8th StormCon. Anaheim, California.
Susilo, K.,Matasovic, N.and Johnson, R.S. (2009a). “Considerations, Opportunities, and Strategies for Infiltration
Stormwater BMPs”. Proc. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2009, Great Rivers. Kansas
City, Missouri. pp. 971-980.
Kwok, O-L.A., Stewart, J.P., Hashash, Y.M.A.,Matasovic, N., Pyke, R., Wang, Z., and Yang, Z. (2007). “Use of Exact
Solutions of Wave Propagation Problems to Guide Implementation of Nonlinear Ground Response Analysis
Procedures”. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 133, No. 11, pp. 1385-
1398.
Kwok, O-L.A., Stewart, J.P., Hashash, Y.M.A.,Matasovic, N., Pyke, R., Wang, Z., and Yang, Z. (2006). “Utilizing
Nonlinear Seismic Ground Response Analysis Procedures for Turkey Flat Blind Predictions”. Proc. 3rd
International Symposium on The Effects of Surface Geology on Seismic Motions. Grenoble, France. Paper
No. 50, pp. 255-264.
B-19
Neven Matasovic, PhD, PE, GE
Page 5
geo-logic.com
Stewart, J.P., Kwok, O-L.A., Hashash, Y.M.A.,Matasovic, N., Pyke, R., Wang, Z., and Yang, Z. (2006). “Overcoming
Hurdles that Limit the Application of Nonlinear Seismic Ground Response Analysis in Engineering Practice”.
Proc. 5th National Seismic Conference on Bridges and Highways. San Francisco, California. CD-ROM Paper
B04, 11 p.
Kwok, O-L.A., Stewart, J.P., Hashash, Y.M.A.,Matasovic, N.Pyke, R., Wang, Z. and Yang, Z. (2006). “Practical
Implementation of Analysis Routines for Nonlinear Seismic Ground Response Analysis”. Proc. Eighth U.S.
National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering (8NCEE). San Francisco, California. CD-ROM Paper No. 546.
Matasovic, N., Caldwell, J. and Guptill, P. (2004). “The Role of Geotechnical Factors in Northridge Earthquake
Residential Damage”. Proc. 5th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. New
York, New York. CD ROM Paper 3.14.
Mansour, C., Steinberg, A., and Matasovic, N.(2004). “Analysis, Design and Construction of the Supporting
Structure and Wharf Retrofit for a new Shiploader at the Port of Long Beach, California”. Proc. Ports 2004.
Houston, Texas. CD ROM Paper No. 106.
Luke, B.A.,Matasovic, N.and Kemnitz, M. (2002). “Evaluating the Seismic Response of Deep Sandy Soil
Deposits”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 91, No. 6, pp. 1516-1525.
Kavazanjian, E., Jr. and Matasovic, N.(2001). “Seismic Design of Mixed and Hazardous Waste Landfills”. Proc.
4th International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics. State-of-the-Art Paper No. SOAP-11. San Diego, California.
Munfakh, G., Kavazanjian, E., Jr.,Matasovic, N.Hadj-Hamou, T., and Wang, J. (1999). “Ground Motion
Characterization”. In: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Reference Manual, FHWA-HI-99-012, U.S.
Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, D.C. Chapter 4.
Field, E.H., Kramer, S., Elgamal, A.-W., Bray, J.D.,Matasovic, N., Johnson, P.A., Cramer, C., Roblee, C., Wald, D.J.,
Bonilla, L.F., Dimitriu, P.P., and Anderson, J.G. (1998). “Nonlinear Site Response: Where We’re At”.
Seismological Research Letters, SSA. Vol. 69, No. 3, pp. 230-234.
Matasovic, N.and Kavazanjian, E. Jr. (1998), “Cyclic Characterization of OII Landfill Solid Waste”. ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 124, No. 3, pp. 197 210.
Matasovic, N.Kavazanjian, E., Jr., and Giroud, J.P. (1998). “Newmark Seismic Deformation Analysis for
Geosynthetic Covers”. Geosynthetics International, IGS Journal. Vol. 5, Nos. 1 - 2, pp. 237-264.
Matasovic, N.and Kavazanjian, E., Jr. (1998). “Performance of Solid Waste Landfills in Earthquakes”. Earthquake
Spectra. Journal of the EERI. Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 319-334.
Kavazanjian, E., Jr.,Matasovic, N.Hadj-Hamou, T., and Sabatini, P.J. (1997). “Design Guidance: Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering for Highways”. Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 3, DTFH61 94 C 00099. U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Washington, D.C. Vol. I 186 p., Vol. II, 163 p.
Matasovic, N., Kavazanjian, E., Jr. and Yan, L. (1997). “Newmark Deformation Analysis with Degrading Yield
Acceleration”. Proc. Geosynthetic ’97. Long Beach, California. Vol. 2, pp. 989-1000.
Yan, L.,Matasovic, N.and Kavazanjian, E., Jr. (1996). “Seismic Response of Rigid Block on Inclined Plane to
Vertical and Horizontal Ground Motions Acting Simultaneously”. Proc. 11th ASCE Engineering Mechanics
Conference. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Vol. 2, pp. 1110 1113.
Matasovic, N.and Kavazanjian, E., Jr. (1996). “Observations of the Performance of Solid Waste Landfills During
Earthquakes”. Proc. 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Acapulco, Mexico, CD-ROM Paper
No. 341.
B-20
Neven Matasovic, PhD, PE, GE
Page 6
geo-logic.com
Matasovic, N.and Vucetic, M. (1995). “Seismic Response of Soil Deposits Composed of Fully-Saturated Clay and
Sand”. Proc. 1st International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 1, pp.
611 616.
Matasovic, N.and Vucetic, M. (1995). “Generalized Cyclic Degradation-Pore Pressure Generation Model for
Clays”. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. 121, No. 1, pp. 33 42.
Richardson, G.N., Kavazanjian, E., Jr. and Matasovic, N.(1995). “RCRA Subtitle D (258) Seismic Design Guidance
for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facilities”. EPA Guidance Document 600/R 95/051. United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio. 143 p.
Matasovic, N.and Vucetic, M. (1993). “Cyclic Characterization of Liquefiable Sands”. ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. 119, No. 11, pp. 1805 1822.
Matasovic, N.(1991). “Selection of Method for Seismic Slope Stability Analysis”. Proc. 2nd International
Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. St. Louis,
Missouri. Vol. 2, pp. 1057-1062.
B-21
A
P
E
M
G
2
B
E
O
P
R
P
E
C
P
C
P
T
P
A
W
w
p
h
/
Alan F. W
Project Engin
EDUCATION
Master of Scie
Geotechnical
2009 Purdue U
Bachelor of Sc
Engineering, U
Oklahoma, 20
PROFESSIONA
REGISTRATION
Professional G
Engineer,
California, No
Professional E
California, No
Professional E
Texas, No. 115
PUBLICATION
An up‐to‐date
Witthoeft’s pu
well as PDFs o
publications, c
https://www.
/profile/Alan_
Witthoef
eer III
ence,
Engineering,
University
cience, Civil
University of
007
AL
NS
Geotechnical
. GE3110
Engineer,
. C80244
Engineer,
5424
S
e list of Mr.
ublications, a
of selected
can be found
researchgate
_Witthoeft
ft, PE, G
Mr. W
geote
includ
comp
and
mode
engin
assur
trans
nume
MSE
involv
geoe
Key
Gran
Witth
desig
build
roadw
geote
bridg
sum
evalu
time‐
FWD
budg
Proje
Witth
Vega
$900
proje
3.7
interc
bridg
interc
geote
includ
fills.
(simu
and t
Crens
Califo
Main
coord
s
at:
e.net
E
Witthoeft is a
echnical and
de geotechn
puter modelin
design, incl
eling. His
neering, geo
rance monito
sportation, la
erous earth‐r
walls), deep
ved with ap
nvironmenta
Project Ex
d Parkway D
hoeft acted a
gn for the Sta
project. Thi
way across th
echnical desig
ge over US 9
component f
uation, pavem
‐and‐materia
testing, an
get significant
ect Neon Des
hoeft acted a
s, Nevada. T
0 million, wit
ect, the larges
miles of I‐1
change in do
ges, numerou
change (the
echnical anal
ding drilled s
Managed
ultaneously)
third‐party re
shaw Line S
ornia. Mr.
ntenance Yar
dinated with
a registered
geoenvironm
ical site inve
ng in support
luding slope
project exp
otechnical fi
oring. He h
andfill design
retaining stru
and shallow
pplication of
l projects.
perience
Design‐Build,
s project eng
ate Highway
s project incl
hree counties
gn services fo
90. Geotechn
for drilled sha
ment design,
ls contract fo
d laboratory
tly over $1 mi
ign‐Build, I‐1
as project eng
This project i
h an approx
st public wor
15 between
owntown Las
us embankme
first in Ne
ysis and des
shaft bridge f
project st
and interfac
viewer perso
Southwest M
Witthoeft a
rd design‐bu
the design‐b
Geotechnical
mental consu
estigation an
t of geotechn
e stability, s
erience incl
ield investig
has evaluate
n, and earth
uctures (inclu
w foundations
geosynthetic
, Segments I
gineer for geo
99 (Grand P
luded design
s. The scope
or about 25 m
ical design s
aft foundatio
MSE wall d
or approxima
y testing, br
illion.
15 and US 95
gineer for th
included a p
ximately $2 m
rks project in
Sahara Ave
Vegas. The
ents, retainin
evada). Mr
sign for all ge
foundations,
taff in Irvin
ed with des
onnel to addre
Maintenance
acted as pro
uild project
builder, develo
l Engineer (C
ulting experie
nd character
ical and geoe
seepage, an
udes transp
gation, and
d static and
works projec
ding Mechan
s, embankme
cs in variety
I‐1 and I‐2,
otechnical eva
Parkway) Segm
for approxim
e for Segmen
miles from Hi
services inclu
on design, em
esign, and re
ately 400 bo
ringing total
Corridors, La
he Project Ne
lanned const
million geote
Nevada histo
enue and t
project includ
ng walls, pav
. Witthoeft
eotechnical a
MSE abutme
ne, San Die
ign‐builder, o
ess major pro
Yard Desig
oject enginee
in Los Ang
oped a work
California) wit
ence. His ca
ization and
environmenta
d stress/def
ortation geo
construction
d seismic sta
cts and has
nically Stabiliz
ent fills, and
y of geotech
Houston, Te
aluation and p
ments H and
mately 52 mil
ts I‐1 and I‐2
ighway 146 a
ded a $670,
mbankment se
eporting, as
orings, CPT s
project geo
as Vegas, Nev
eon design‐bu
truction cost
echnical budg
ory, includes
the “Spaghet
des construct
vements, and
performed
aspects of th
ents, and emb
ego, and La
owner (Neva
oject challeng
n‐Build, Los
er for the S
geles, Califor
plan, and per
th diverse
apabilities
advanced
al analysis
formation
otechnical
n quality
ability for
designed
zed Earth,
has been
nical and
xas. Mr.
pavement
d I design‐
es of new
2 included
and to the
000 lump
ettlement
well as a
oundings,
otechnical
vada. Mr.
uild in Las
of nearly
get. This
widening
tti Bowl”
tion of 29
d an HOV
extensive
e project,
bankment
as Vegas
ada DOT),
ges.
Angeles,
Southwest
rnia. He
rformed a
B-22
A
P
g
b
p
g
p
G
M
N
w
s
s
r
p
G
M
N
t
d
e
s
r
r
c
a
p
c
L
s
e
p
f
C
i
h
d
s
d
e
Alan F. W
Page 2
geotechnical
borings, in‐sit
portion of the
geotechnical
pavement des
Geotechnical
Mr. Witthoef
Northern and
work included
structure sup
small‐diamete
recommendat
piles), and pre
Geotechnical
Mr. Witthoef
Northern and
timber‐suppo
double‐track
earth‐retainin
subsurface co
retaining wal
railroad safet
completion o
approximately
pile type sele
capacity for tw
Landslide Sta
served as pr
extension of
proposed exte
feet thick. Th
California’s m
nvestigation
hole geophys
deposit mater
shear plane g
demonstratio
extension.
Witthoef
investigation
tu shear wave
e project invo
analyses, inc
sign calculatio
Evaluation, B
ft planned an
d Santa Fe Ra
d demolition o
ported on de
er borings t
tions were d
eliminary ana
Evaluation, B
ft planned an
Santa Fe Ra
rted railroad
bridge struct
ng system, a
onditions and
ls. Services in
ty training fo
of safety re
y 85 feet. Ba
ection (i.e., C
wo driven ste
ability Evalua
oject engine
the La Pata
ension will tra
he landslide d
most unstable
program tha
ics), drilling,
rial. The work
eometry, and
n that an an
ft, PE, G
for a propos
e velocity me
olved signific
luding pile ca
ons. Prepare
BNSF Bridge
nd executed
ilway railroad
of the existin
eep foundati
to a depth
eveloped reg
alysis of axial
BNSF Bridge
nd executed
ilway railroad
bridge existe
ture, includin
nd construct
d to provide
ncluded coor
or all site pe
quirements,
ased on the r
Cast‐in‐Drilled
eel pile sectio
tion – La Pat
er for the g
Avenue (Cen
averse a Holo
deposit is wit
e geologic fo
at included ge
trenching, sa
k further inclu
d 2D and 3D s
ncient landsli
E
sed light rail
asurement, p
ant coordina
apacity calcul
d the geotech
7680‐35.7 Re
a geotechnic
d bridge Railr
g timber‐sup
ons. The ex
of up to 1
garding pile t
pile capacity
7200‐574.1 R
a geotechnic
d bridge 7200
ed at the site
ng installation
tion of bridg
e recommend
rdination with
rsonnel as w
field explor
results of fiel
d‐Hole, CIDH,
ns was perfo
ta Avenue Ga
geotechnical
ntral Segmen
ocene landslid
thin the Capi
ormation. Sc
eologic mapp
ampling, and
uded interpre
static and sei
de deposit (
maintenance
percolation te
tion with clie
ations, analy
hnical report
eplacement P
cal evaluation
road Bridge 7
ported bridge
ploration con
101½ feet.
type selection
for driven ste
Replacement
cal evaluation
0‐574.1. At th
. These were
n of a deep f
ge abutments
dations for p
h the client a
well as utility
ration was p
d exploration
versus drive
rmed.
ap Closure, S
investigation
nt; Geotechni
de deposit th
istrano forma
cope of serv
ping, geophys
geotechnica
etation of site
ismic slope st
FS = 1.0) wi
e yard. The g
esting, and la
ent, MTA, and
ysis of percola
conveying re
Project Victo
n for the pro
7680‐35.7 in V
e constructio
nsisted of the
Based on
n (i.e., Cast‐i
eel piles was
t Project, Nee
n for the pro
he time of the
to be demol
foundation s
s. The purpo
preliminary d
and BNSF to
y clearance t
performed, i
n, recommen
en piles), and
San Juan Cap
n and evalua
ical scope of
at is approxim
ation, a form
ices called fo
sical measure
al laboratory
e groundwate
tability evalua
ll be suitable
geotechnical
boratory test
d multiple co
ation test and
elevant findin
rville, Califor
oposed repla
Victorville, Ca
on of a concre
e drilling, log
the results
n‐Drilled‐Hole
performed.
edles, Califor
oposed repla
e evaluation,
ished and rep
ystem, instal
ose of the st
design of the
complete ba
through two
including bo
ndations were
d preliminary
pistrano, Cali
ation in supp
f work budge
mately 0.6 m
mation widely
or an execut
ements (surf
testing of re
er conditions,
ations. Proje
e subgrade f
ge
investigation
t assignment.
ontractors. P
d laboratory
gs to the clie
rnia. Project
acement of B
alifornia. Pla
ete double‐tra
gging, and sa
of field ex
e, CIDH, vers
rnia. Project
acement of B
, a railroad tr
placed with a
llation of a t
tudy was to
e pile founda
ackground ch
BNSF divisio
orings to a
e developed
y analysis of
fornia. Mr.
port of the
et: $1,000,00
iles long and
regarded as
tion of a foc
face refractio
epresentative
, developmen
ect challenges
or the propo
eo‐logic.com
n included
. The field
Performed
data, and
nt.
Engineer.
Burlington
anned site
ack bridge
mpling of
ploration,
sus driven
Manager.
Burlington
rack and a
a concrete
emporary
evaluate
ation and
hecks and
ons. Upon
depth of
regarding
axial pile
Witthoeft
proposed
00+). The
up to 300
southern
cused site
on and in‐
landslide
nt of basal
s included
osed road
B-23
J
S
E
B
E
H
P
R
P
C
M
O
C
U
G
C
C
O
C
R
P
E
N
M
Jake Rus
Senior Projec
EDUCATION
BS, Environme
Engineering, 1
Humboldt Sta
PROFESSIONA
REGISTRATION
Professional E
California, No
Montana, No.
Oregon, No. 7
Colorado, No.
Utah, No. 588
Guam, No. 16
CERTIFICATIO
Certified Nucl
Operator
Certified by th
Research Insti
PROFESSIONA
Engineers Ass
Nevada Count
Member
ssell, PE
t Manager
ental Resourc
1998
te University
AL
NS
Engineer:
. C64512
. 16151
74557
. 39267
81834
621
NS
ear Soil Testi
he Geosynthe
itute
AL AFFILIATIO
ociation of
ty – Board
Mr. R
Oreg
perm
solid
State
engin
expe
the p
docu
analy
quali
Johns
Califo
GLA i
to pr
Cany
GLA i
const
prepa
Russe
Modu
deve
Desig
Joaqu
Proje
2B at
estab
const
Desig
Land
Lead
Speci
Landf
Phas
Califo
Proje
(2018
Modu
For M
Quali
remo
ces
y, CA
ng
etics
NS
Russell is a Re
on, Montana
mitting, and co
waste, comp
es and abroad
neering and o
rience encom
preparation of
ments, geote
yses, and surf
ty assurance
son Canyon L
ornia
is currently u
ovide solid w
on Landfill’s f
is currently w
truction in ea
aration of the
ell was on the
ules V & VI, a
lopment at th
gn of Module
uin County, C
ect Manager i
t the Landfill.
blish new pha
truction of M
gn of Areas 5
fill, San Joaq
Design Engin
ifications, CQ
fill. Also prov
e 2A, Module
ornia
ect Manager a
8) and Phase
ule 4 consiste
Module 4, GLA
ity Control Bo
oval system (L
egistered Prof
, and Guam.
onstruction m
posting, and im
d. For more th
overall plannin
mpasses all as
f design repo
echnical inves
face water hy
(CQA) projec
Landfill Expan
nder contract
waste consulti
future develo
working on the
arly 2019. GLA
e Technical Re
e project team
nd Module 4
he Landfill.
e 2B at the Fo
California
n charge of t
Contract also
asing, final gra
odule 2B will
B and 6 at th
uin County, C
neer in charge
QA Plan, and E
vided enginee
e 2, 3 & 4 Des
and Engineeri
2A, Module 3
ed of 30 acres
A successfully
oard for an en
LCRS) layer w
fessional Eng
He is respons
management o
mpoundment
han 15 years
ng for severa
spects of civil
orts, construct
stigations, sei
ydrology stud
cts for more t
nsion Designs
t with the Sal
ng and engin
opment. With
e design of M
A is also assist
eport for thei
m that provid
456B as well a
oothill Recycl
he design and
o included co
ading, and op
l also be prov
he North Coun
California
e of preparing
Engineers Esti
ering support
sign, Bena Sa
ing Task Man
3 (2010) com
s and Module
y gained appr
ngineered alt
hich consiste
ineer in Califo
sible for the c
of infrastruct
t projects thr
he has manag
l major indus
design and c
tion documen
ismic hazard s
ies. He has m
han 15 years
s and Master
linas Valley So
eering servic
h Mr. Russell a
Module VII, wh
ting the Auth
ir composting
ded the design
as master plan
ing Center &
d engineering
mpleting a ne
ptimization. S
vided in 2019.
nty Recycling
g the Constru
imate for Are
during the co
anitary Landfi
nager for the
posite liner sy
e 3 consisted
roval from the
ternative leac
ed of a geocom
ge
ornia, Colorad
civil design,
ture, remedia
roughout the
ged all of the
strial sites. His
onstruction in
nts, SWPPPs,
studies, stabi
managed cons
.
r Planning, Go
olid Waste Au
es related to
as Project Ma
hich is slated
hority in the
g facility. Ear
n of landfill ex
nning and site
Sanitary Lan
g services for
ew master pl
ervices durin
.
g Center & Sa
uction Plans,
eas 5B and 6 a
onstruction.
ill, Kern Coun
Phase 2A, Mo
ystem expans
25 acres of li
e Regiojnal W
chate collectio
mposite drain
o‐logic.com
do, Utah,
ation,
United
e
s
ncluding
permit
ility
struction
onzales,
uthority
Johnson
anager,
for
rlier, Mr.
xpansion
e
ndfill, San
Module
an to
g
anitary
at the
nty,
odule 4
sions.
ned area.
Water
on and
nage
B-24
J
P
la
c
d
C
M
U
P
M
U
c
P
P
q
l
d
d
A
P
D
s
b
r
c
W
S
f
c
c
c
E
P
f
C
A
p
W
P
P
Jake Rus
Page 2
ayer in place
construction c
design, prepa
CQA services.
Manager for t
University of
Project Manag
Maintenance
University of C
compacted cla
Phase 3 Expan
Project Manag
quality assura
iner for the e
design, and co
document pre
Arvin Sanitary
Project Manag
Developed co
stormwater co
berm. Additio
recommendat
construction.
Wasatch Regi
Since 2005, Pr
for all six phas
cover permit,
construction o
collection syst
ECDC Environ
Project Manag
from a double
Control Act w
Assurance, de
projections, a
Washington C
Project Manag
Project Manag
ssell, PE
of the blanke
costs alone an
ration of con
Also served a
the preparati
California Da
ger and lead
Plan, Constru
California Dav
ay and geome
nsion Design,
ger for the Ph
ance. Phase 3
expansion. Ot
onstruction d
eparation. Ot
y Landfill Clo
ger for the de
onstruction dr
ontrols, excav
onal tasks incl
tion on the b
ional Landfill
roject Manag
ses of constru
stormwater
of two double
tem.
nmental Land
ger for severa
e composite t
waste cell. Oth
esign of a dou
nd miscellane
County Landf
ger for nume
ger for the pr
et gravel laye
nd is projecte
struction doc
as the Engine
on of a comp
avis Landfill C
design engine
uction Plans,
vis Landfill. CQ
embrane cov
, California St
hase 3 expans
included a b
her projects i
ocument pre
her engineer
sure, Kern Co
esign and con
rawings, spec
vation and bl
uded assistin
ids received f
, Tooele, Uta
ger for six exp
uction. Other
control desig
e‐lined liquid
fill, East Carb
al projects sin
to a single com
her projects in
uble lined liqu
eous site eng
fill, Washingt
rous projects
reparation of
r. This chang
ed to save ove
cuments, tech
eering Task M
prehensive ph
Closure, Davis
eer for the de
Specification
QA Manager
er, gas collec
treet Landfill
sion cell desig
entonite/nat
include Engin
eparation as w
ing tasks inclu
ounty, Califor
nstruction doc
ifications, an
ending of con
ng with the pr
from contract
ah
pansion design
engineering
gn, including p
waste evapo
bon, Utah
nce 2006. Pre
mposite liner
nclude design
uid waste pon
gineering.
on City, Utah
s at the landfi
a comprehen
ge saved the C
er $15,000,00
hnical assistan
Manager for th
hasing and Ma
s, California
evelopment o
s, and bidding
for the const
ction and cont
l, Redlands, C
gn, construct
ive soil admix
neering Task M
well as Phase
ude master p
rnia
cument prepa
d CQA Plan fo
ntaminated s
reparation of
tors, and prov
ns, constructi
tasks include
ponds, downd
oration ponds
epared a perm
system. Prep
n of 2 phases
nd, stormwate
h
ill since 2004.
nsive site Ma
County over $
00 over the lif
nce during co
he Phase 2A,
aster Plan for
of the Final Cl
g documents
truction of th
trol system u
California
ion documen
x program to
Manager for t
1 and 2 expa
planning, perm
aration for th
or the evapot
oil piles, pan
the bid packa
ving engineer
ion documen
e the preparat
drains, and co
s, and CQA fo
mit revision to
pared permit
of landfill exp
er collection
. Including fiv
ster Plan, bor
$1,000,000 in
fe of the land
onstruction, a
Module 2 des
r the site and
losure and Po
s for the WMU
e final cover.
pgrades, and
nt preparation
create the lo
the East Side
ansion cell des
mitting, and o
he final closur
transpirative
lysimeter, an
age, reviewin
ring and tech
nts, and CQA P
tion of an eva
ollection chan
r the installat
o redesign the
documents f
pansion, Cons
design, yearly
ve expansion
rrow soil ana
ge
n Module 4
dfill. Tasks in
and performa
sign and the P
a landfill gas
ost‐Closure
U2 Closure at
Project cons
d stormwater
n, and constru
ow permeabil
monolithic co
sign and cons
operations su
re of the Land
final cover,
nd flood plan
ng and provid
nical support
Plans. CQA M
apotranspirat
nnels, the des
tion of a land
e landfill liner
for a Toxic Su
struction Qua
y site life and
designs and C
lysis stormwa
o‐logic.com
ncluded
nce of
Project
system.
t the
sisted of
controls.
uction
ity soil
over
struction
pport.
dfill.
control
ing
t during
Manager
tive final
sign and
fill gas
r system
bstances
ality
d capacity
CQA.
ater
B-25
J
P
a
s
T
P
P
f
w
I
j
O
E
E
t
le
s
C
C
i
a
G
P
M
a
e
A
M
E
L
c
d
p
H
E
H
t
Jake Rus
Page 3
analysis and d
services.
Tower Landfi
Project Manag
Project Manag
final closure d
work involves
mpact Statem
urisdictional
Ordot Dump S
Engineer of Re
Environmenta
the geotechni
evel docume
site.
CQA for Gas C
CQA Manager
nstallation of
and the exten
Graham Road
Project Manag
Manager and
at the site. Le
engineering a
Also Project M
Monterey Pen
Engineering s
Landfill. The p
composite lin
drainage mate
project team
Hesperia Land
Engineering T
Hesperia Sani
the project.
ssell, PE
design, Closur
ll, Commerce
ger for seven
ger for the CQ
design and CQ
s preparing th
ment for a lat
creek.
Superfund Cl
ecord for the
al Response, C
ical investigat
nts for the sit
Collection and
r for the gas c
f vertical gas e
nsion of existi
d Recycling an
ger for the de
lead design e
ead design en
ssistance incl
Manager prov
ninsula Landf
upport for th
project includ
er system of
erial. Contrac
for the review
dfill Closure E
Task Manager
tary Landfill.
re/Post‐Closu
e City, Colora
landfill expa
QA for all sev
QA services, n
he permitting
eral footprint
osure, Guam
final closure
Compensatio
tion, evaluate
te and prepar
d Conveyanc
collection and
extraction we
ng operation
nd Disposal F
esign of the C
engineer for t
ngineer for th
luded the pre
viding CQA se
fill, Marina, C
e design of th
ed the design
clay, Geosynt
ct bid assistan
w and modific
Engineering,
r for the Final
Provided con
ure Plans, site
do
nsion designs
en phases of
numerous ope
documents a
t expansion o
m
construction
n, and Liabilit
ed site develo
red the Closu
e System Exp
d conveyance
ells and wellh
s layer gas w
Facility, Medi
Cell 5D at the
the design of
e preparation
eparation a Fi
rvices for the
California
he Module 5
n and prepara
thetic Clay Lin
nce and const
cation of the
Hesperia, Ca
Closure Cons
nstruction doc
density calcu
s, preparation
construction
erations and e
and assisting
of the landfill
n documents f
ty Act Superf
opment altern
re and Post‐C
pansion, Rive
e system expa
head assembli
ells.
cal Lake, Was
Graham Road
a secondary
n of the Cells
ve Year Plan,
e Cell 5C cons
and Module 4
ation of const
ner (GCL), Hig
truction desig
existing Mast
lifornia
struction Proj
cument prepa
ulations, perm
n of construct
n. Also Project
engineering s
with the prep
which includ
for the Ordot
und site on th
natives, deve
Closure Plans
erbend Landfi
ansion at the
ies; leachate
shington
d Recycling a
aluminum pr
6 through 9 a
, clay borrow
truction at th
4 expansions
truction docu
gh Density Po
gn support wa
ter Plan.
ject of the 37
aration and c
mitting, and g
tion docume
t Manager fo
support proje
paration of an
es the realign
t Dump Comp
he Island of G
loped the fin
for this chall
ill, McMinnvi
Riverbend La
pumps for th
nd Disposal F
rocessing was
and leachate
study, altern
he site.
at the Monte
uments and C
olyethylene (H
as provided a
7‐acre monoli
construction s
ge
general engin
nts, and CQA
r a 20‐acre pa
ects. Current
n Environmen
nment of a
prehensive
Guam. GLA pr
al bid/constr
enging, high
ille, Oregon
andfill. Include
he gas extract
Facility. Proje
ste (salt cake)
pond design.
native liner de
erey Peninsu
CQA Plans for
HDPE), and LC
as well. Also o
ithic cover at
support throu
o‐logic.com
eering
Plans.
artial
project
ntal
rovided
uction‐
rainfall
ed
tion wells;
ct
) Monofill
. Other
esign.
la
the
CRS
on
the
ughout
B-26
J
P
M
P
e
l
C
C
t
g
s
D
P
la
s
P
K
D
S
P
P
s
D
C
c
s
H
P
d
c
N
P
s
e
H
P
f
d
Jake Rus
Page 4
Missoula Land
Project Manag
expansion. Als
ife calculation
CQA for Mod
CQA Manager
testing and do
geotextile, dra
sideslopes. Al
Design Engine
Prepared desi
andfill closure
storage pond.
Partial Landfi
Key project te
Developed th
Storm Water
Provided perm
Prevention Pla
surface water
Da Phuoc Lan
Civil design su
collection syst
soft, marine c
Heap Leach C
Performed civ
design. Design
conveyor‐stac
Nickel Heap L
Performed civ
solution pond
estimations.
Heap Leach D
Prepared desi
facility includi
documents fo
ssell, PE
dfill Expansio
ger for the de
so prepared M
ns. Provided s
ule 13 at the
r and Certifyin
ocumentation
ainage layer,
so managed t
eering, Coffin
ign plans and
e at this high
. Prepared ye
ll Closure, Sh
eam member
ree‐dimensio
Pollution Pre
mit assistance
an, and Storm
r.
ndfill, Ho Chi M
upport multip
tem design, a
clay.
Concept Study
vil design wor
n work includ
cker system, r
Leach Scoping
vil engineerin
d layout optio
Design, Coeur
ign drawings
ing HDPE and
or horizontal a
on Engineerin
esign and pre
Master Plan a
services at th
Columbia Rid
ng Engineer f
n included tw
the leachate
the CQA of Le
n Butte Landf
construction
rainfall site. A
early site capa
hort Mountai
for the prepa
onal phasing d
evention Plan
e for a compo
mwater Contr
Minh City, Vi
ple phased of
and stormwat
y, Cerro Mato
rk related to t
ded sizing and
raincoats, hyd
g Study, Gag
g work for th
ons, residue a
r Rochester M
and construc
d compacted c
and vertical e
ng, Missoula,
eparation of c
and Closure P
e landfill sinc
dge Landfill a
for the 16.3‐a
wo leak detect
collection sy
eachate Impo
fill, Benton Co
n documents f
Also prepared
acity analyses
n Landfill, La
aration of des
drawings and
n, Lopez Agric
osting facility.
rol Plan. Perfo
etnam
landfill expan
ter design. De
oso Nickel Mi
the Heap Lea
d layout optio
drology, and
Island Nickel
e nickel heap
nd ripios disp
Mine, Loveloc
ction docume
clay liners an
expansions of
Montana
onstruction d
Plan drawings
ce 2004.
and Recycling
cre Module 1
tion systems,
stem, and the
oundment #2
ounty, Orego
for three pha
d design plan
s and site life
ne County, O
sign plans for
slides for lan
cultural Servi
. Prepared a S
ormed field in
nsion and clo
esign challeng
ine, Columbia
ch Concept S
ons for the he
hydraulics.
Mine, Indon
p leach scopin
posal options,
k, Nevada
nts for multip
d secondary c
the site.
documents fo
s. Prepared ye
g Center (CRL
13 constructio
GCL, 60‐mil H
e protective s
(Phase 1) an
on
ases of landfil
ns and constru
calculations.
Oregon
r a partial land
ndfill planning
ices, Sacrame
Storm Water
nvestigation o
sure. Services
ges included e
a
tudy, pre‐fea
eap leach pad
nesia
ng study. Wor
, stormwater
ple phases of
containment
or three phase
early site capa
LRC), Arlingto
on at the CRL
HDPE geome
soil cover on
d leachate lif
ll expansion a
uction docum
dfill closure a
g.
ento, Californ
Pollution Pre
of site impact
s included lin
extremely hig
asibility study
and process
rk included h
design and p
f construction
systems. Pre
ge
es of landfill
acity analyses
on, Oregon
LRC. Observat
mbrane liner
floor liner an
ft station.
and two phas
ments for a lea
at this high ra
nia
evention Plan
ts to ground a
ner design, lea
gh rainfall site
, and pilot pla
ponds, ripios
eap leach pad
project cost
n of the heap
epared permit
o‐logic.com
s and site
tions,
r,
d
es of
achate
infall site.
, Spill
and
achate
e and
ant
s disposal,
d and
leach
tting
B-27
C
P
E
B
E
C
C
P
R
P
C
P
A
P
C
O
O
O
R
Caleb M
Project Engin
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Sc
Engineering, 2
California Stat
Chico
PROFESSIONA
REGISTRATION
Professional E
California, No
Professional E
Arizona, No. 5
PROFESSIONA
Certified Nucl
Operator
OSHA Hazardo
Operations an
Response Trai
iller, PE
eer
cience, Civil
2007
te University,
AL
NS
Engineer,
. C77424
Engineer,
54945
AL TRAINING
ear Soil Testi
ous Waste
nd Emergency
ining (40‐Hou
Mr. M
Arizo
supp
highl
const
mana
quan
includ
comp
on ex
Sycam
Proje
These
onsit
of ap
11.5
reloc
comm
regul
perso
are in
plann
Mont
This p
Prima
leach
estim
with
This p
by th
this p
Vario
revie
includ
fly” e
Aeria
This p
weste
by th
and n
requi
durin
ng
y
ur)
Miller is a reg
ona and provi
ort for variou
y skilled at ut
truction plan
agement, pre
tity takeoffs,
de handling t
pleted on tim
xperience in t
more Landfill
ect Manager f
e include: con
e aggregate p
pproximately
acres of lined
cating major t
munication an
latory agencie
onnel, and ma
ntertwined an
ning, and seq
terey Peninsu
project involv
ary responsib
hate and storm
mate and bid d
the client and
project requir
e regulating a
project to ens
ous task work
wed. Also pro
ded regular s
engineering d
al Budget Mo
project involv
ern United St
e client(s) in
necessary cap
ired close com
ng the length
istered profe
des engineer
us solid waste
tilizing AutoC
sets. His prim
eparing plans,
and supervis
the financial a
e and within
the field perfo
l Multiple Pro
for various co
nstruction of
processing fac
11 million cu
d landfill foot
transmission l
nd scheduling
es, preparing
aking on the f
nd therefore
uencing.
ula Landfill P
ved the desig
bilities include
m water calcu
document pre
d regulatory a
red an engine
agency. A ter
sure tasks we
k completed b
ovided engine
ites visits, att
ecisions as co
odel Preparat
ved volume ca
tates. The res
order to dete
pital improvem
mmunication
of the projec
essional engin
ing, analytica
e, mining, and
ad Civil 3D (C
mary enginee
, specification
sing other eng
aspects of pro
the specified
orming const
ojects, Santee
oncurrent pro
a new landfil
cility; ongoin
bic yards of s
print; and co
line around t
g with contra
progress and
fly engineerin
require a sign
Phase 5 Desig
n of a new 23
ed preparing
ulations, stab
eparation. Re
agency to ens
eered alterna
rtiary task wa
ere completed
by other engin
eering suppo
tending progr
onditions cha
tion, Republic
alculations on
sults of the vo
ermine remai
ments. Each l
with the indi
ct.
neer in the Sta
al, and projec
d other civil d
CADD) in the p
ring responsi
ns and certifc
gineers. Othe
ojects to ensu
d budget. Mr.
ruction qualit
e, California
ojects at the S
ll access road
g mass excav
soil; construct
nstruction of
he landfill. Du
ctors and ven
d certification
ng decisions a
nificant amou
n, Marina, Ca
3‐acre modul
detailed cons
bility analysis,
egular progre
sure all requi
ative to be de
s to manage
d within the a
neers was sup
rt during con
ress meetings
anged during
c Services’ W
n 30 landfill s
olume calcula
ining airspace
landfill site w
ividual landfi
ge
ate of Californ
t managemen
esign project
preparation o
bilities includ
ation reports
er responsibil
ure that tasks
Miller also h
ty assurance.
Sycamore Lan
d; relocation o
vation and sto
tion of approx
f pads used fo
uties include
ndors, meetin
n reports, ma
as needed. Al
unt schedulin
alifornia
e at the Land
struction plan
, quantities, e
ss meetings w
rements wer
signed and a
the financial
allotted budge
pervised and
nstruction and
s, and make “
construction.
West Region Si
sites througho
ations were a
e, site life, soi
was unique an
ll manager/o
o‐logic.com
nia and
nt
ts. He is
of
de project
s,
ities
s are
as hands‐
.
ndfill.
of the
ockpiling
ximately
or
ngs with
naging
ll projects
g,
dfill.
ns,
engineer’s
were held
e met.
pproved
aspect of
et.
d
“on the
.
ites
out the
nalyzed
il usage,
d
perator
B-28
C
P
C
O
R
P
M
T
p
a
f
B
P
T
a
e
p
m
t
V
T
o
p
b
A
T
la
o
c
O
T
c
p
S
T
P
s
S
T
i
Caleb M
Page 2
California Stre
On the engine
Responsibilitie
Performed ev
Missoula Land
This project in
previous pilot
and specificat
final certificat
Baker Commo
Project Manag
The primary t
an engineered
exceeded the
plans, specific
manage the fi
task work com
Vadose Zone
This is an ong
of the soil ben
performing/su
budgeting pro
Arizona Landf
These project
andfill sites th
of constructio
certification r
Otay Landfill
This project in
closely with th
perimeter and
South Tahoe
This project in
Primary respo
structures.
Santa Elena M
This project in
ncluded surfa
iller, PE
eet Landfill P
eering design
es included p
valuation and
dfill Partial C
nvolved the c
t study for an
tions. Tasks a
tion report.
odities Lagoo
ger for the clo
ask was to de
d alternative
standard reg
cations, quant
inancial aspec
mpleted by ot
Monitoring,
oing quarterl
neath landfill
upervising fie
oject expense
fills, Arizona
s are ongoing
hroughout Ar
on plans and s
eports.
Slope Stabilit
nvolved prepa
he project en
d review the f
Public Utility
nvolved remo
onsibilities inc
Mine, Sonora,
nvolved desig
ace hydrology
Phase 3 Desig
team for the
preparing desi
obtained app
losure, Misso
losure of app
evapotransp
also included
on Closure, Ha
osure of thre
esign a non‐p
analysis in or
gulatory requ
tity estimates
ct of this proj
ther engineer
Buttonwillow
y project for
cells in order
eld work, prep
es, and handli
g and involve
rizona. Each
specifications
ty, Chula Vist
aration and im
gineer to dev
final technica
y District, El D
oving and rep
cluded calcula
, Mexico
gning a new le
y analysis, con
n, Redlands,
e new seven‐a
ign and detai
proval for diff
oula, Montan
proximately e
pirative (ET) co
managing the
anford, Califo
e existing wa
rescriptive co
rder to demon
irements. Up
s, and a quali
ject to ensure
rs was superv
w and Westm
two hazardou
r to verify a fu
paring summa
ng project inv
the design an
landfill site ty
s, manageme
ta, California
mplementatio
velop slope st
al report.
Dorado Count
lacing the exi
ating geosynt
each pad in o
nstruction pla
California
acre Phase 3 e
l drawings, ca
ferent cell siz
na
ight acres at t
over system t
e constructio
ornia
stewater lago
over for the w
nstrate that t
on approval o
ty assurance
e tasks were c
vised and revi
morland, Calif
us waste land
unctioning co
ary reports, c
voices.
nd constructi
ypically expan
nt of constru
on of a slope
tability cross s
ty, California
isting geosynt
thetics and ea
rder to expan
ans, and calcu
expansion at
alculating qua
ze options.
the Missoula
to develop an
on quality assu
oons at a hide
wastewater la
the proposed
of the non‐pr
plan was pre
completed w
ewed.
fornia
dfills that invo
ontainment sy
client commu
ion of landfill
nds every oth
ction quality
stability work
sections at cr
thetics of the
arthworks qu
nd the existin
ulating quant
the Californi
antities, and e
Landfill. Tas
nd implement
urance comp
e skinning an
agoons. This i
non‐prescrip
rescriptive co
epared. A tert
ithin the allot
olves testing t
ystem. Respo
nication, sup
expansions l
her year. Task
assurance, an
k plan. Tasks
ritical location
e emergency r
antities, and
g mine opera
tity takeoffs.
ge
a Street Land
engineer's es
ks included u
t construction
onent and pr
d processing
nvolved perfo
ptive cover m
over, construc
tiary task was
tted budget.
the moisture
onsibilities inc
ervising emp
ocated at sev
ks include pre
nd preparatio
s included wo
ns along the l
retention bas
designing inl
ations. Respo
Subsequent w
o‐logic.com
dfill.
stimates.
utilizing a
n plans
reparing a
facility.
orming
et and/or
ction
s to
Various
content
clude
loyees,
veral
eparation
on of final
orking
andfill
sin.
et/outlet
nsibilities
work at
B-29
C
P
t
t
M
T
o
e
c
G
T
i
a
L
T
m
c
Caleb M
Page 3
this mine site
tailings mater
Marigold Min
This project in
order to expa
expansions. P
calculating qu
Gag Island Sco
This project in
ncluded desig
as well as calc
Layon Landfil
This project in
monitor const
construction t
iller, PE
also included
rials to determ
ne Cell 16 Exp
nvolved desig
nd the existin
Primary respo
uantity takeof
oping Study,
nvolved a stud
gn and layout
culating quan
l, Guam
nvolved the c
truction of th
techniques fo
d the design o
mine stability
pansion, Hum
gning a new le
ng mine oper
onsibilities inc
ffs.
Indonesia
dy of the feas
t of leach pad
tities associat
onstruction o
he low perme
ollowed those
of dry stack ta
and design c
mboldt County
each pad, solu
ations. Each f
cluded surfac
sibility of buil
d, residue sto
ted with each
of a new landf
ability soil lay
e listed in the
ailings storag
criteria.
y, Nevada
ution collectio
facility was de
e hydrology a
ding a heap l
rage facilities
h.
fill on the isla
yer, geosynth
project plans
e facility. Lab
on corridor, a
esigned to ac
analysis, prep
each mining
s, water stora
and of Guam.
hetics, and ov
s, specificatio
boratory tests
and solution c
ccommodate
paring constru
operation. P
age facilities, a
Primary resp
verliner placem
ons, and quali
ge
s were condu
collection pon
future mine
uction plans,
rimary respo
and processin
ponsibility wa
ment to ensu
ity assurance
o‐logic.com
cted on
nd in
and
nsibilities
ng plants,
as to
ure
plan.
B-30
J
C
p
T
A
A
S
A
T
Jorge E.
CADD Design
plans and doc
The project re
EDUCATION
Coursework i
AutoCAD and
Information s
Riverside Cou
College, 2003
Coursework i
Engineering a
Universidad N
Autónoma de
Regional del
Honduras, 19
SPECIALIZED
Academic Ins
AIDP Civil
AIDP Auto
AIDP 3DS
AIDP Revit
and 2010
AIDP Auto
2009
AIDP Civil3
Training in th
AutoCAD 2
Instrumen
Solidwork
Water Qu
Plan Prepa
ENE‐30: A
G.I.S.‐1: In
Geograph
Systems
. Amaya
ner
cuments of a
equired the d
in Mathemati
d Geographic
system (GIS),
unty Commun
3
in Civil
and Design,
Nacional
e Honduras,
Centro Norte
990‐1997
TRAINING
structor for:
3D 2010,
oCAD 2010,
Max Design 2
t Architecture
oCAD Architec
3D 2008
he following:
2008 P&ID (P
ntation Diagra
s
ality Manage
aration Traini
AutoCAD 2004
ntroduction t
ic Informatio
a
Mr. A
inclu
deve
prep
Engi
man
as a
Repr
Suns
Prep
syste
expa
Chiq
Prep
expa
Para
Prep
Big P
Prep
desig
Old
Prep
reco
char
draw
Engi
Deve
As a
plan
10 a
off‐s
and
and
Engi
Rive
As a
site for 2,800
esign of on‐s
ics,
nity
e,
2010,
e 2009
cture
Piping &
ams)
ment
ing
4
to
n
Amaya is a CA
uding civil des
elopment, bri
pared designs
neers, militar
nagement com
CADD instruc
resentative P
shine Canyon
pared grading
em expansion
ansion of this
quita Canyon
pared stockpi
ansion design
adise Dump, M
pared limit of
Pine Dump Si
pared the top
gns.
Red Bluff Du
pared as‐built
onsolidation a
racterization s
wing.
neering Serv
elopment , Co
CADD design
s and docum
cres of comm
site water, sew
the realignm
hydraulic calc
neering Serv
erside, Califor
CADD design
0 single family
ite and off‐sit
ADD Designer
sign for gener
idge, highway
s for public an
ry bases, land
mpanies. In a
ctor for more
Project Experi
n Landfill, Los
g, composite l
n, and drainag
large metrop
Landfill, Los
ling, drainage
ns for this larg
Mono County
f waste figure
ite, Inyo Coun
ographic mod
mp, Tehama
t design draw
area, confirma
sample drawi
ices for Bould
ounty of Rive
ner responsib
ents for a 170
mercial use. Th
wer, irrigatio
ent of Cajalco
culations.
ices for Audie
rnia
ner responsib
y homes, two
te improveme
r with more t
ral grading, se
y, street, and
nd private clie
d developme
addition to his
e than five yea
ience
s Angeles Cou
liner system,
ge system de
politan landfi
Angeles Cou
e, transportat
ge landfill.
y, California
es and site re
nty County, C
del, cover soi
County Coun
wings, includin
ation sample
ing, and storm
der Springs/B
erside, Califo
ble for design
0 acre of resi
he project req
n, storm drai
o Road. Work
e Murphy Ra
ble for design
o school sites,
ents and grad
than 23 years
ewer, storm d
architetural
ents, includin
nt companies
s design work
ars.
unty, Californ
road improve
esigns to supp
ll.
nty, Californi
tion and haul
mediation de
California
il model, and
nty, California
ng final site gr
location draw
mater BMP im
Boulder Heig
rnia
and preparat
dential with 2
quired the de
n, sewer pum
k also include
anch Land De
and preparat
parks and op
ding.
geo
s of experien
drain, water,
projects. He
g the Army C
s, and waste
k, Mr. Amaya
nia
ement, landfi
port ongoing
ia
routes, and C
esigns.
site remedia
a
rading model
wing, waste
mplementatio
hts Land
tion of constr
258 dwelling
esign of on‐sit
mp stations, g
d hydrology s
velopment, C
tion of constr
pen space am
o‐logic.com
ce,
landfill
has
Corps of
served
ill gas
Cell 5
tion
, waste
on
ruction
units and
te and
grading
studies
County of
ruction
menities.
B-31
J
P
E
A
a
o
E
A
3
p
d
E
C
A
f
o
N
a
p
R
E
A
2
i
E
A
4
g
E
A
i
E
C
A
f
E
A
d
Jorge Am
Page 2
Engineering S
As a CADD de
and documen
off‐site impro
Engineering S
As a CADD de
310 lot reside
project requir
design of 2,80
Engineering S
California
As a CADD de
facilities (inclu
of the bridge
Newport Road
analysis and d
proposed of t
Road and wid
Engineering S
As a CADD de
241 single fam
mprovement
Engineering S
As a CADD de
400‐lot subdiv
grading.
Engineering S
As a CADD de
ncluding a tra
Engineering S
California
As a CADD de
for 236‐lot su
Engineering S
As a CADD de
design include
maya
Services for “T
signer respon
nts of 500‐uni
ovements and
Services for JB
signer respon
ential develop
red the design
00 feet of a tr
Services for N
signer respon
uding street I
abutments su
d, Traffic Strip
design of rock
his project w
en Newport R
Services for S
signer respon
mily residentia
ts and grading
Services for C
signer respon
vision for this
Services for U
signer respon
ain station.
Services for T
signer respon
bdivision on t
Services for T
signer respon
ed grading an
The Retreat”
nsible for re‐d
t residential g
d grading.
BJ Ranch Land
nsible for des
pment on 160
n of on‐site a
rapezoidal cha
Newport Road
nsible for pre
mprovement
ubgrade, the
ping and Sign
k scour protec
as for the com
Road.
un Ranch Lan
nsible for des
al homes for
g.
anyon Heigh
nsible for des
s 276 acre dev
University Hig
nsible for the
ract Map 200
nsible for grad
this 135 acre
ract Map 173
nsible for des
nd on‐site imp
Golf & Coun
design gradin
golf course de
d Developme
ign and prepa
0 acres in the
nd off‐site im
annel/open s
d & Goetz Ro
paration of im
ts, relocation
over excavat
age, Traffic S
ction to prote
mpletion and
nd Developm
ign and prepa
this 70 acre d
ts Land Deve
ign and prepa
velopment. T
ghlands Land
earthwork ca
010 Land Dev
ding design a
developmen
341‐Cielo Vist
ign and prepa
provements.
try Club Land
g portions of
evelopment.
ent, County o
aration of con
Horsethief Ca
mprovements
pace corridor
ad Completio
mprovement
of water mai
ion and reme
Signals, catch
ect the bridge
relocation of
ent, Sun City
aration of con
development
elpment, Cou
aration of con
The project re
Developmen
alculations of
velopment, Ci
nd preparatio
t.
ta Land Deve
aration of con
d Developme
the site and
The project r
of Riverside, C
nstruction pla
anyon area o
and grading,
r.
on of Improv
plans for the
ins and recyc
edial grading
basins and d
e from storm
f Goetz Road
y, County of R
nstruction pla
. The project
nty of Rivers
nstruction pla
equired the de
nt, County of
f this 192 acre
ity of Fontan
on of concept
elopment, Co
nceptual plan
ent, County o
preparation o
required the d
California
ans and docu
of the County
also this proj
vements, Cou
e construction
led water ma
of the propos
rain pipes, an
flows in the S
from Newpo
Riverside, Cal
ans and docu
required the
ide, Californi
ans and docu
esign of on‐si
Riverside, Ca
es multi‐prop
na, County of
tual plans an
unty of Oran
ns for a 84 acr
geo
of Riverside, C
of constructio
design of on‐
ments of a si
of Riverside.
ject involved
nty of Rivers
n of the propo
ains, the stabi
sed widening
nd the hydrau
Salt Creek). T
ort Road to No
lifornia
ments of a si
design of on
ia
ments of a si
ite improvem
alifornia
posed develop
San Bernard
d documents
nge, California
re site. Conce
o‐logic.com
California
on plans
site and
te for
The
the
side,
osed
ilization
g of
ulic
he
ormandy
te for
‐site
te for
ments and
pment,
ino,
s of a site
a
eptual
B-32
J
P
E
A
f
d
Jorge Am
Page 3
Engineering S
As a CADD de
family and co
design of off‐s
maya
Services for P
signer respon
ndo complex
site and on‐si
onte Vista ‐ H
nsible for des
subdivision o
ite improvem
HighPark Lan
ign and prepa
on 61.5 acre s
ments and grad
d Developme
aration of con
site in the San
ding.
ent, County o
nstruction pla
n Pedro Port
of Los Angele
ans and docu
area. The pro
geo
es, California
ments for 68
oject required
o‐logic.com
81 single
d the
B-33
G
Att
GLA Pro
tachme
oject Ex
ent 3
xperiencce
B-34
geo-logic.com
Road Ex
The propo
landslide
thick. Th
regarded
groundwa
shear pla
Moment
Accelerat
an endan
constructi
Scope of
program
(surface r
and geote
material.
conditions
shear test
Based on
three-dim
and seism
included
deposit th
strength p
reconcilia
strengths
of static a
the propo
The team
improvem
will be me
Deposit C
Client
Huitt‐Zollars
Contact
Confidentia
Timeframe
2001‐2014
Contract Am
$1.3 Million
Personnel
Neven Mata
Alan Wittho
(work with f
m
xtension F
osed extensio
deposit that i
he landslide d
as southern C
ater is approx
ane. The sit
Magnitude o
ion (PHGA) o
gered specie
on of a stabil
services calle
that included
refraction and
echnical labo
The work fu
s, basal shea
ting of basal s
n the results o
ensional (2-D
mic stability o
assessing p
hat was requir
parameters, d
tion of bac
from laborato
and seismic s
sed improvem
m was able t
ments, static a
et without con
C.
s, Inc.
l
mount
n
asovic, PhD, PE,
oeft, PE, GE
former employe
Feasibility S
on of the La P
is approximat
deposit is wit
California’s m
ximately 150
te is in an a
f 7.2 and si
of 0.47 g. Env
es habitat pre
ity buttress at
ed for an exe
d geologic m
d in-hole geo
oratory testing
urther include
ar plane geo
shear plane m
of this investi
D and 3-D) s
f the propose
present-state
red for back-c
development
ck-calculated
ory torsional
stability criteri
ment.
to demonstra
and seismic st
nstruction of
GE
er)
Study, Des
Pata Avenue
tely 0.6 miles
thin the Capi
most unstable
ft above the
area of high
te bedrock P
vironmental c
clude re-align
t the toe of la
ecution of a fo
mapping, geo
physics), dril
g of represen
ed interpreta
ometry, and
materials.
gation, the te
stability mode
ed improveme
Factor of S
calculation of
of representa
shear stre
ring shear te
a that are su
ate that, upo
tability criteria
a costly berm
sign, and P
will traverse
s long and up
istrano forma
geologic form
e landslide de
seismicity,
Peak Horizon
concerns such
nment of the
ndslide depos
ocused site i
ophysical me
ling, trenchin
ntative lands
tion of site g
results of to
eam develope
els to demon
ents. Project
Safety (FS) o
basal shear
ative 2-D cros
ength param
esting, and es
itable, yet ac
on grading fo
a established
m at the toe o
Pre-Improvem
La Pata
Permitting
a Holocene
p to 300 feet
ation, widely
mation. The
eposit basal
with design
ntal Ground
h as limits of
road and/or
sit.
nvestigation
easurements
ng, sampling
slide deposit
groundwater
orsional ring
ed two- and
strate static
t challenges
of landslide
plane shear
ss sections,
meters with
stablishment
chievable for
or proposed
d for this site
of Landslide
ment Static and Pse
L
P
Avenue
Servic
G
G
i
s
G
i
S
m
G
T
B
D
2
A
D
p
s
P
eudostatic Stability
Landslide Deposit C
Project Expe
Gap Clo
ces Provided
Geologic Mappin
Geotechnical Inv
ncluding drilling
sampling
Groundwater mo
nstallation and m
Site-specific geo
measurements
Geotechnical Lab
Testing
Back Analysis of
Deposit
2-D and 3-D Slop
Analysis
Development of g
plans and technic
specifications
Permitting
Landslide Depo
Evaluation – Aeria
C prior to road con
rience
sure
Page 1
d:
ng
vestigation,
and
onitoring well
monitoring
physical
boratory
Landslide
pe Stability
grading
cal
osit C
al view of
struction
B-35
Project Experience
US Navy, Southwest Division
geo-logic.com Page 1
Geotechnical services to support widening/new alignment, Wire Mountain/Vandegrift
Boulevard area, Boulevard, Camp Pendleton, CA
The proposed Wire Mountain Road Bridge over Vandegrift Boulevard
and associated improvements will improve traffic flow north of the
Main Gate at Marine Corps Base (MCB), Camp Pendleton, CA. The
proposed project includes a bridge structure and approximately 2,200
feet of new roadway and embankment located north of the Main Gate
at MCB Camp Pendleton, CA to accommodate the proposed increased
traffic loading for the new Navy Hospital.
The scope of work included 13 exploratory borings across the site and
associated laboratory testing to provide a geotechnical report
addressing geotechnical conditions for the proposed structure,
roadway, and associated improvements. The purpose of this
geotechnical study was to evaluate soil conditions below the existing
bridge, associated roadways, and retaining walls to provide
geotechnical recommendations to aid the design team with
preparation of project plans and specifications.
The design and construction was performed in accordance with current
Caltrans criteria and requirements.
Client
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Contact
Scott Tenhoff, P.E., ROICC Camp Pendleton
P: 760‐725‐8201, C: 619‐708‐8290
Timeframe
2012‐2016
Contract Amount
$50,000
Personnel:
Joseph Franzone‐Project Engineer
Ted Primas‐Geologist
Site Safety Plan
Traffic control
Exploratory borings across the
site
Laboratory soil testing
Development of geotechnical
design recommendations
Subsurface exploration
Geologic mapping
Pavement design
Caltrans Design specifications
2010 Present day
B-36
B
M
C
M
C
J
T
2
C
$
P
C
G
G
i
t
f
P
c
S
p
A
g
h
c
M
t
C
G
c
Butterfield
Morgan Hill, C
Client
Mark Thomas &
Contact
immy Sims | 4
Timeframe
2011 – 2013
Contract Amou
$200,000
Personnel
Chalerm (Beeso
Grant Deem
Geo‐Logic Ass
nvestigation f
terminus near
four lane road
Pacific Railroa
channel, a det
Stabilized Em
program inclu
A Foundation
guidelines and
hole pile foun
capacity of pil
MSE and reta
team aprepar
Caltrans guide
GLA also prov
construction o
d Bouleva
CA
& Company/Cit
408‐453‐5373
unt
on) Liang
sociates (GLA
for the exten
r Tenant Aven
d with an ove
ad tracks. Ass
tention pond
bankments, a
uded convent
and Geotech
d provided re
ndation for th
les, foundatio
ining walls, a
red an Accele
elines for des
vided geotech
of the project
ard Extens
ty of Morgan H
) performed a
sion of Butte
nue to Monte
r‐crossing at
sociated impr
, a biofiltratio
and retaining
ional borings
hnical Investig
ecommendati
e over‐crossi
ons for box cu
nd flexible pa
ration Respo
ign of the ove
hnical observa
t.
sion
Hill
a geotechnica
rfield Boulev
erey Road. Th
Railroad Ave
rovements in
on basin, box
walls. The su
s and Cone Pe
gation report
ons for earth
ng and pile ti
ulverts, param
avement sect
nse Spectrum
er‐crossing.
ation and test
al and founda
ard from its s
he project inc
nue and the S
clude a drain
culverts, Me
ubsurface exp
enetrometer T
following Ca
hwork, cast‐in
p elevations,
meters for des
ions was prep
m (ARS) based
ting services d
ation
southern
cludes a
Southern
age
chanically
ploration
Testing.
ltrans
n‐drilled‐
lateral
sign of the
pared. GLA
d on
during
Project High
Observ
compac
subgrad
constru
backfill
culverts
for the
Observ
founda
Review
Attenda
Prepara
progres
Project E
hlights
ation and field
ction testing d
de preparation
uction of the M
ing adjacent to
s, construction
detention pon
ation of bridge
tion excavatio
w of submittals
ance of project
ation of daily r
ss reports
Experience
d
uring
n,
MSE walls,
o box
n of levees
nds
e
ns
and RFIs
t meetings
eports and
B-37
Cost Esstimate
Att
e Task B
tachme
Breakdo
ent 4
own andd Assummptionss
B-38
Cost Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
March 14, 2019
Cost Summary by Task
Task No.Project Description Cost
1 Survey and Document Review $11,630
2 Geotechnical and Environmental Field Services $17,506
3 Conceptual Design and Geotechnical Evaluation $27,448
4 Detailed Design and Engineer’s Estimate $42,980
5 Bid and Permitting Support $15,170
6 Meetings $6,352
Subtotal:$121,086
Total:$121,086
Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design
Palos Verdes Drive South Realignment
Cost Estimate
B-39
Client Name:City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name:Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Palos Verdes Drive South Realignment
Project Number:SO19.1062.PR Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Task 1 Survey and Document Review
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $250.00 $
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00 4 896.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00 8 1,384.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00
Project Assistant II Staff Hour 85.00
Subtotal:12 $2,280.00
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Cal Vada Surveying, Inc.10%LS 8,500.00 1 8,500.00
Surveying
Subtotal:$8,500.00
Total Direct Cost 10,780.00
Markup on third party services 850.00
TASK 1 SUBTOTAL $11,630.00
TASK 1 TOTAL $11,630.00
NOTES:
March 14, 2019
Witthoeft
Witthoeft
Witthoeft/Matasovic
Witthoeft/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
B-40
Client Name:City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name:Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Palos Verdes Drive South Realignment
Project Number:SO19.1062.PR Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Task 2 Geotechnical and Environmental Field Services
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $$250.00 $
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour $224.00 4 896.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour $204.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour $204.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour $204.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour $204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour $173.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour $173.00 8 1,384.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour $161.00 10 1,610.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour $135.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour $128.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour $110.00
Technician III Staff Hour $97.00
Subtotal:22 $3,890.00
Drilling Subcontractor 10%LS 4,500.00 1 4,500.00
Geotechnical Drilling
Envicom Corporation 10%LS 7,500.00 1 7,500.00
Environmental Survey
Los Angeles County 10%LS 378.00 1 378.00
Well Permit
Subtotal:$12,378.00
Total Direct Cost 16,268.00
Markup on third party services 1,237.80
TASK 2 SUBTOTAL $17,505.80
TASK 2 TOTAL $17,505.80
NOTES:
Witthoeft/Matasovic
March 14, 2019
Witthoeft
Witthoeft
Witthoeft/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
B-41
Client Name:City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name:Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Palos Verdes Drive South Realignment
Project Number:SO19.1062.PR Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Task 3 Conceptual Design and Geotechnical Evaluation
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $250.00 $
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00 8 1,792.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00 24 4,896.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00 120 20,760.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00
Subtotal:152 $27,448.00
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Subtotal:$0.00
Total Direct Cost 27,448.00
Markup on third party services 0.00
TASK 3 SUBTOTAL $27,448.00
TASK 3 TOTAL $27,448.00
NOTES:
March 14, 2019
Witthoeft
Witthoeft
Witthoeft/Matasovic
Witthoeft/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
B-42
Client Name:City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name:Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Palos Verdes Drive South Realignment
Project Number:SO19.1062.PR Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Task 4 Detailed Design and Engineer’s Estimate
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $250.00 $
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00 20 4,480.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00 40 8,160.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00 157 27,120.20
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00 20 3,220.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00
Subtotal:237 $42,980.20
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
$$
Subtotal:$0.00
Total Direct Cost 42,980.20
Markup on third party services 0.00
TASK 4 SUBTOTAL $42,980.20
TASK 4 TOTAL $42,980.20
NOTES:
March 14, 2019
Witthoeft
Witthoeft
Witthoeft/Matasovic
Witthoeft/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
B-43
Client Name:City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name:Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Palos Verdes Drive South Realignment
Project Number:SO19.1062.PR Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Task 5 Bid and Permitting Support
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $250.00 $
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00 40 6,920.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00
Subtotal:40 $6,920.00
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Envicom Corporation 10%LS 7,500.00 1 7,500.00
Consistency Evaluation
Subtotal:$7,500.00
Total Direct Cost 14,420.00
Markup on third party services 750.00
TASK 5 SUBTOTAL $15,170.00
TASK 5 TOTAL $15,170.00
NOTES:
March 14, 2019
Witthoeft
Witthoeft
Witthoeft/Matasovic
Witthoeft/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
B-44
Client Name:City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name:Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Palos Verdes Drive South Realignment
Project Number:SO19.1062.PR Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Task 6 Meetings
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $250.00 $
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00 16 3,584.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00 16 2,768.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00
Subtotal:32 $6,352.00
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Subtotal:$0.00
Total Direct Cost 6,352.00
Markup on third party services 0.00
TASK 6 SUBTOTAL $6,352.00
TASK 6 TOTAL $6,352.00
NOTES:
March 14, 2019
Witthoeft
Witthoeft
Witthoeft/Matasovic
Witthoeft/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
B-45
The follo
T
G
p
P
p
a
in
O
st
p
b
O
d
co
su
d
co
su
su
co
re
co
Ex
co
p
ra
G
co
in
p
a
G
co
g
d
G
w
wing assum
he fee brea
GLA may revi
roject budge
avement de
referred pav
dditional fe
ncluding traf
One set each
tages outline
ublic, etc.) a
asis for addi
One design
iscussed wit
onsultation
ubstantially
esign conce
oncept will b
ubstantial m
ubmittal (e.g
oncept, mul
ework of t
oncepts will
xcept as e
onference ca
roposed sco
ate schedule
GLA will no
onstruction
n response
roposal, wh
ny purpose.
GLA will not
omplex, or a
ross neglige
amage resul
GLA will add
will provide a
ptions have
kdowns by
ise task‐ and
et, without a
esign will no
vement sect
ee, and the
ffic index (TI)
of City com
ed in this pr
and/or addit
itional fee.
concept wi
th the City
with the C
fixed with r
ept will be
be develope
modification
g., 60% com
ltiple design
he selected
be perform
xplicitly pro
alls, respons
ope of work
e.
ot be respo
cost estimat
to the bid
ich was dev
t be respon
any landslid
ence under
lting therefr
ress review
assistance, t
FEE A
been made
task, person
d personnel‐
additional Ci
ot be perfo
tion. If pav
e City will p
) and design
mments will b
roposal. Co
tional City co
ll be develo
before mov
City at the
respect to a
developed
ed 60% desig
of the ge
mplete desig
n concepts w
d design co
ed on a time
ovided for
se to review
on a time‐a
onsible for
tes prepared
package.
veloped in t
nsible for a
es in the vic
GLA’s perfo
om.
comments
to a reasona
ASSUMPTION
in preparing
nnel, etc. ar
‐specific bud
ity authoriza
ormed, as t
vement desi
provide all
life.
be addresse
mments fro
omments wi
oped to the
ving forward
e 30% desig
alignment an
to subsequ
gn level (and
eometry and
gn will not b
will not be d
oncept and/
e‐and‐mater
in the pro
w comments,
nd‐material
differences
d as a part of
The notion
he absence
any moveme
cinity, that i
ormance of
from the Ci
ably practica
NS
g this propo
re tentative
dgets, while
ation.
he City has
gn is to be
relevant va
d for the 60
m other ent
ill be addres
e approxima
d with furth
gn level, th
nd embankm
uent levels o
d adjusted to
d configura
be discarded
developed i
/or develop
rials basis fo
oposal, add
, etc., will b
s basis in ac
s, regardles
f the propos
nal construc
of a design
ent of the
is not proxim
the propos
ty as provid
able extent,
sal:
and are su
remaining w
s provided g
revisited, G
alues for pa
0%, 90%, and
tities (e.g., a
ssed on a tim
ately 30% d
her design d
he design
ment config
of completi
o final desig
ation after
d in favor o
n parallel, e
pment of a
r additional
ditional tim
be charged in
ccordance w
ss of magn
sed project a
ction cost d
, will not be
Portuguese
mately caus
sed services
ded for in th
to the City
ubject to cha
within the ov
guidance on
GLA will do
avement de
d 100% subm
agencies, ge
me and mat
design level
developmen
concept wi
uration, and
on. The d
n stage), wit
the 60% d
f another d
etc.). Substa
dditional d
fee.
e for meet
n addition to
with the appr
nitude, betw
and bids rec
discussed in
e relied upo
e Bend land
ed by GLA's
s, or any lo
his proposal
in respondi
ange.
verall
n the
so at
esign,
mittal
eneral
erials
l and
t. In
ll be
d this
esign
thout
esign
esign
antial
esign
tings,
o the
roved
ween
eived
n this
on for
dslide
s sole
ss or
, and
ng to
B-46
o
p
u
b
G
ex
F
n
F
w
M
in
S
d
a
re
re
b
O
fo
G
su
W
G
si
U
m
fe
O
m
N
p
C
a
O
g
h
w
ccasional in
roposal, pe
nforeseen a
asis at addit
GLA and its
xploration a
riday, 8:00 a
eeded, by C
ield work by
wage require
Monitoring o
ncluded in th
urveyor will
iscrepancies
nd/or if any
ecorded Sub
equired to fi
e performed
One Los Ange
or GLA’s serv
GLA will not
urvey, or oth
We will be p
GLA will not
ite personne
USA marking
markings, if r
ee.
Our borings w
mix asphalt c
No safety tra
ersonnel.
onstruction
re ready to p
Our evaluati
roundwater
azards or ris
work.
nquiries from
ermitting an
at the time o
tional fee.
subconsulta
nd improvem
a.m. to 5:00
ity personne
y GLA’s drill
ments. Oth
f survey mo
his scope of
not file a Re
s are found
y of the bou
bdivision Ma
ile a Record
d on a time‐a
eles County
vices.
provide tra
her services
provided wit
be responsi
el or USA.
gs will not
requested, w
will be back
oncrete patc
aining or m
observation
provide this
on will not
, surface wa
sks. These se
m local res
nd regulator
of this propo
ants and su
ment locatio
0 p.m.). Acc
el. Work will
ling and sur
er services w
onuments (e
services but
ecord of Sur
d between t
ndary lines
ap, Official M
of Survey. T
and‐materia
well permit
affic control
related to th
th plans sho
ble for utilit
be removed
will be perfo
kfilled with o
ching, and/o
eeting atten
n and testing
service at a
include an
ater, or othe
ervices can
sidents. Ex
ry support
osal, etc.) w
bcontractor
ons during st
cess to fenc
not be cond
rveying subc
will not be su
.g., to evalua
t can be prov
rvey. If, in pe
the field co
being estab
Map, or Reco
The prepara
als basis for a
will be obta
during field
his proposal.
owing the lo
ties not show
d when the
ormed on a
on‐site mate
or other surf
ndance will
g are not inc
dditional sco
ny sampling
er materials
be provided
xcept as ex
(e.g., resp
will be provid
rs will be a
tandard wor
ced areas of
ducted durin
contractors
ubject to pre
ate landslide
vided, if requ
erforming th
onditions an
blished are n
ord of Surve
ation and fili
additional fe
ained. No ot
d exploratio
.
ocations of e
wn on the p
e work is c
time and m
erials. Slurry
face patching
be require
cluded in th
ope and bud
g, testing, o
s for the pu
d, if requeste
plicitly prov
onse to ag
ded on a tim
ble to acce
rking hours (
f the site w
ng inclement
will be subj
evailing wag
e‐related de
uested, at ad
he boundary
nd the "rec
not shown o
ey, then the
ng of a Reco
ee.
ther permits
on, surveying
existing utili
plans nor m
complete.
materials ba
y backfill, gr
g will not be
ed for GLA o
he fee quote
dget.
or chemical
rpose of ev
ed, as an ad
vided for in
gency comm
me and mat
ss the prop
(Monday thr
will be grante
t weather.
ject to prev
ge requireme
eformation) i
dditional fee
y survey, ma
cord" condit
on any previ
surveyor ma
ord of Surve
s will be req
g, environm
ities, if avai
arked out b
Removal of
sis for addit
rout backfill,
e required.
or subcontr
ed herein, bu
analysis of
aluating pos
dditional sco
n the
ments
erials
posed
rough
ed, if
ailing
ents.
is not
e.
terial
tions,
ously
ay be
y will
uired
mental
lable.
by on‐
USA
tional
, hot‐
ractor
ut we
f soil,
ssible
pe of
B-47
From: So Kim
Sent:
To:
Monday, March 18, 2019 3:59 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Pre Service Interment Preparation for today's funeral
Good Afternoon,
Below is Late Correspondence for tomorrow's Public Hearing Item No.1-GH.
Sincerely,
So l<im, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www. rpvca .gov
(310) 544-5222
From: Thomas W. Frew [mailto:TFrew@ghmp.com]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 1:43 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Nick Resich <nresich@ghmp.com>; Steven A. Espolt <SEspolt@ghmp.com>
Subject: RE: Pre Service Interment Preparation for today's funeral
Thank you for sharing this comment with us. We are well aware of the Condition limiting the hours for pre-service
interment preparation and post-service plot backfilling. We understand this condition to impose restrictions on the
hours during which interment plots may be prepped and backfilled, both of which involve the use of heavy
equipment/machinery, and which therefore could be audible to our neighbors. Today's activity involved the
mortuary's placement of a podium and table, both of which are inert objects that do not make audible sounds, and
neither of which involve interment preparation. We believe that allowing the mortuary to place these objects prior
to 10:00 is within the letter and spirit of the applicable Condition.
Please let us know if you have any further questions.
Tom
Thomas W. Frew
CFO -General Manager
~ -~
GREEN HILLS
ivt 1-: M 0 H I A I. P A R K
Direct Line (310) 521-4412 I Fax Line (310) 519-8236
Main Line (310) 831-0311 I www.greenhillsmemorial.com
1
From: So Kim [mailto:SoK@q2yca.gov]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 10:32 AM
To: Nick Resich <nresich@ghmp.com>; Thomas W. Frew <TFrew@ghmp.com>; Steven A. Espolt <SEspolt@ghmQ.com>
Subject: FW: Pre Service Interment Preparation for today's funeral
From: So Kim
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 10:32 AM
To: 'Debbie Landes' <dlbodesi@fastmail.com>
Subject: FW: Pre Service Interment Preparation for today's funeral
Good Morning,
Thank you for informing me. I will forward your email to Green Hills. Would you like your email to be included as late
correspondence for tomorrow night's meeting?
Sincerely,
So l<im, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
':!:!_WW. rpvca .gov
(310) 544-5222
From: Debbie Landes [mailto:dlbodesi@fastmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 10:07 AM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Pre Service Interment Preparation for today's funeral
Good Morning So,
In preparation for a service/burial today on the rooftop of PTM at 12 noon, Green Hills' staff broke one
of the rules regarding hours for Preparation, etc. for a service on top of the mausoleum.
I have included the rule in the CUP that applies here for easy reference (pg. A22,h, #1)
About 8:15 this am I saw a podium and a table up on the rooftop, so this clearly does not follow the rule
of that pre-service interment preparation "shall only be allowed between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00p.m".
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
2
From: Matt Martin <matthewhmartin@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 11:12 AM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Noel Weiss <noelweiss@ca.rr.com>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk
<CityCierk@ rpvca .gov>
Subject: Re: Green Hills is out of Compliance with their CUP (Include In Late Correspondence or Staff Report)
Thank you for looking into this
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
18, 19, l: I Kirn <SoK@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Dear Matt,
The buildings in the maintenance yard that encroach into the minimum required setbacks were constructed prior
to the City's incorporation under Los Angeles County. In conducting some research, these buildings appear to
have been there at least since 1963, based on historical aerial imagery. These buildings are considered legal non-
conforming and may remain in place unless voluntarily removed. If Green Hills voluntarily demolishes these
legal non-conforming structures, any new structures shall comply with current development standards and the
Council-adopted Conditions of Approval, including minimum required setbacks. Your email as well as my
response to you will be forwarded to the City Council as late correspondence.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(31 0) 544-5222
From: Matt Martin [ mailto:matthewhmartin@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 7:26PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Noel Weiss <noelweiss(W,ca.rr.com>; Doug Willmore
<DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Green Hills is out of Compliance with their CUP (Include In Late Correspondence or Staff Report)
Doug, Ara, and So Kim
Green Hills has at least one building that's violating the setback standards of their CUP.
Depending on what source I look at, one of their buildings in the maintenance yard is either OVER the property line-or at
best directly on it.
1 I
2
If you look at the attachments you will see section 13.B of the CUP which clearly shows a 5 foot setback for above ground
structures form the West property line. You will also see a google earth photo which shows the west property line of Green
Hills next to Vista Verde along with the outline of the building in question. It clearly shows the building over the property
line. I understand Google Earth isn't the perfect source of information but it's usually pretty good. I've checked other
sources as well and found the same thing. As you can see from the attached photo, The building is basically touching the
border fence of the property up against ours. It's touching the fence with the UGLY BARBED WIRE that was supposed to
be removed according to your unenforced CUP.
At the very least, your department should investigate this and take action on this issue if necessary. I guarantee you would
do so if I were an RPV resident. I've brought up this issue before and it's embarrassing that your bureaucracy is either too
inefficient to do its job, or too prejudiced towards Lomita residents to even give us a response with an explanation.
Remember that this whole fiasco was created in the first place by your employees not doing their jobs. We had to go out
with a tape measure ourselves to uncover all the illegal property infringements that Green Hills was committing with
regards to interments and structures.
The concept of Green Hills operating under a "Conditional Use Permit" is absolute joke.
They clearly have an Unconditional Use Permit and get to exploit neighboring Lomita residents at their leisure with
unwaivering support of the RPV City Government.
I'm comfortable knowing that this email will go ignored just like all the others.
Matthew Martin
3
----Matt Martin Submittal to Plan... 1 I 7
On 3/14/2019 7:25 PM, Matt Martin wrote:
Doug, Ara, and So Kim
Green Hills has at least one building that's violating the setback standards of their C
Depending on what source I look at, one of their buildings in the maintenance yard
either OVER the property line-or at best directly on it.
If you look at the attachments you will see section 13.8 of the CUP which clearly sh
a 5 foot setback for above ground structures form the West property line. You will a
see a google earth photo which shows the west property line of Green Hills next to
Verde along with the outline of the building in question. It clearly shows the building
the property line. I understand Google Earth isn't the perfect source of information t
it's usually pretty good. I've checked other sources as well and found the same thin
you can see from the attached photo, The building is basically touching the border 1
of the property up against ours. It's touching the fence with the UGLY BARBED WI
that was supposed to be removed according to your unenforced CUP.
At the very least, your department should investigate this and take action on this is~
necessary. I guarantee you would do so if I were an RPV resident. I've brought up t
issue before and it's embarrassing that your bureaucracy is either too inefficient to '
job, or too prejudiced towards Lomita residents to even give us a response with an
explanation.
Remember that this whole fiasco was created in the first place by your employees r
doing their jobs. We had to go out with a tape measure ourselves to uncover all the
illegal property infringements that Green Hills was committing with regards to intern
and structures.
The concept of Green Hills operating under a "Conditional Use Permit" is absolute j
They clearly have an Unconditional Use Permit and get to exploit neighboring Lo1
residents at their leisure with unwaivering support of the RPV City Government.
I'm comfortable knowing that this email will go ignored just like all the others.
Matthew Martin
/.
Submittal to Plan... 2 I 7
EXHffiiTS TO MATT MARTIN EMAIL TO DOUG WILLMORE AND ARA M.
CHALLENGING FACT THAT BUILDING LOCATED ON GREEN HILLS
MAINTENANCE YARD ENCROACHES ON VISTA VERDE SET-BACK.
GOOGLE MAP DEPICTING ENCROACHMENT OF BUILDING LOCATED ON GREJ
HILLS MAINTENANCE YARD WITHIN SET-BACK ON VISTA VERDE PROPERT1
Google Map depicting location of Green Hills Maintenance Yard in relation to Vista Verde
Property Line. The encroaching building is noted by a Red Arrow. The Property line locati<
noted by Black Arrows runs North-South. The maintenance building is right on the propert:
which violates the 5' set-back restriction mandated by Condition 13(b) of the Green Hills N
Plan.
Submittal to Plan ... 3 I 7 X
Satellite Photo depicting the encroachment of the building on Green Hills' Maintenance Yard withi
5' Set-back. The building is identified by the red arrows.
Submittal to Plan... 4 I 7
13. .~etbacks -All pther Area, Not Specified: . .
a. J;Ji_r:thJ.nterrnent§. .. lmd Roads. "Garden" burial interment sites with no a
ground structures (other than benches for seating) and roads shall be as fo
North and South: 8 feet
East and West 0 feet
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 6 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON J~NUARY 31,2017 PER RESOLU.TION N0.)~017...03.
b. Qm,t;?ack~.12LAQ.P~LQ.I!ndJll[uQW1~ including but not limited to mausol
and crypts shall be as follows:
North:
South:
East:
West:
80 feet or no closer than the northern perimeter
whichever is greater from the north property line t
north of the maintenance yard, and 40' from the
property line.
40 feet
25 feet
5 feet
in Submittal to Plan .•. 5 /7
if
l in Submittal to Plan ...
I
6 I 7
5
f
/.4 in Submittal to Plan... 7 I 7
DATE: MARCH 15,2019
TO: TERITAKAOKA
CITY CLERK
FROM: SHARON LOVEYS
VISTA VERDE OWNER
SUBJECT: REBUTTAL OF SHARON LOVEYS CONTENTIONS OF
ELLEN BERKOWITZ IN HER LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2019.
SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES VIA THE CITY'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON MARCH
14, 2019 IN CONNECTION WITH THE GREEN HILLS
COMPLIANCE REVIEW HEARING CURRENTLY SET FOR
MARCH 19, 2019
REBUTTAL OF SHARON LOVEYS TO CONTENTIONS OF ELLEN BERKOWITZ IN
HER LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2019.
SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIA THE
CITY'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON MARCH 14, 2019 IN CONNECTION WITH
THE GREEN HILLS COMPLIANCE REVIEW HEARING CURRENTLY SET FOR
MARCH 19, 2019.
Sharon Loveys rebuts Ms. Berkowitz's counter-contentions as noted below. The reference to
"Claim" is where Mr. Berkowitz characterizes' Ms. Loveys' contention and sub-contention. Ms.
Loveys' rebuttal then follows.
The broader point at issue is whether Green Hills has developed the "Inspiration View" and
"Morning Light Valley" sub-areas of Master Area 4 of the Cemetery in violation of the Master
Plan and without specific use authorization of the City to use these sub-areas for "earth
interments". Ms. Loveys contends that because these earth interment sub-areas were developed
without the City's specific "use" authorization, Green Hills must cease the sale of interment plots
and cease interring human remains in these sub-areas until either (i) the Master Plan is formally
amended to "permit" the use of these open space areas for earth interments and "legalizing" the
current unlawful use of these sub-areas for earth interments, or (ii) Green Hills procures a
variance allowing for such use despite the zoning violation (consisting of the use of these
undesignated areas for earth interments when no permit allowing for such use has been
obtained).
In addition, Ms. Loveys contends that the Council cannot make a factual determination of
whether Green Hills is in compliance with the Master Plan in the absence of factual findings,
measured against a baseline, against which a measurement comparison is made between ( i) the
number of earth interments actually developed in each Master Area and sub-area of the
Cemetery, as previously authorized under the Master Plan (27.21 acres in the Master Plan), (ii)
the number of earth interments actually developed (and the amount of acreage, both of which are
unknown), and (iii) the number of earth interments remaining to be developed under the Master
Plan (also unknown at this point in time). An analysis and baseline determination was made with
regard to the amount of grading (actual versus authorized); but not as to the number of
authorized earth interments. The same baseline factual analysis is required with respect to the
number of authorized Mausoleum (vault interment) space area (2.44 acres in the Master Plan),
but is lacking. Until these factual "Findings" are made, it is not possible to evaluate whether
Green Hills is in compliance.
In short, how much of the 27.21 acres in the Master Plan for earth interments to be developed has
been developed, and how much remains to be developed? The same question applies with
respect to the degree and intensity and density of authorized Mausoleum development on the
2.44 acres allowed for such development under the Master Plan.
1
CLAIM 1 on Page 1 of Ms. Berkowitz's Letter:
Claim I: Green Hi ll s is "deve loping open space" or "space that was designated as open
space in the Master Plan."1 By "developing open space ," the Residents explain that Green
Hills is "allowing earth interments" in areas the Residents c laim were set aside in the Master
Plan as open area unpennitted for ground burials . In other words, they believe that when
Green Hills -a cemetery -inters individua ls in the ground in h eretofore undeveloped areas
within th e cemetery, Green Hills is violating the Master Plan.
);>-Fact: Aside from portions of the Park called out for setbacks, there is 110 such thing
as "designated open space" in the Master Plan nor are there.areas expressly set aside
as unpermitted for ground burials. "Open space" is not a concept referenced or
discussed in any manner in the Master Plan , and for good reason: cemeteries are not
required to maintai n "open space" or space i n which ground burials are not permitted .
REBUTTAL TO GREEN HILLS' POSITION THAT THE MASTER PLAN DOES NOT
CONTEMPLATE UNDEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE AREAS OF THE CEMETERY.
Why Ms. Berkowitz's contention is incorrect. Allowing for the earth interment "development"
in identified sub-areas in the Master Plan does not equate to permitting unfettered "development"
of earth interment sub-areas everywhere in the cemetery. The Master Plan identified sub-areas to
be developed as earth interments and mausoleums. Other (open space) areas (i.e. those sub-areas
not specifically designated for development for earth interments) were left open without any
indication they were to be developed as earth interment areas or for Mausoleum development
under this 2007 approved version of the Master Plan. There is no logical basis to conclude that
such unidentified (for earth interment development) sub-areas for permitted earth interment
"development" were going to be developed absent an amendment of the Master Plan allowing
for the earth interment "development" of such (open space) unidentified sub-areas.
a. Ms. Berkowitz's use of quotations around the term "designated open space" reflects
another one of Green Hills' phony, misleading straw-man arguments; the false logical syllogism
being that if the Master Plan lacks the specific language "designated open space", it is therefore
to be concluded that no open space is contemplated and that Green Hills is free to "develop" the
cemetery where it wants, when it wants, and how it wants. The reason the conclusion is faulty is
because the Master Plan does specifically designate areas, sub-areas, and total acreage where (i)
there are to be "earth interments" (referenced as "ground burials" (see below, for example, where
the term "ground burials" is referenced on the Master Plan in Master Areas 5 and 6 where future
development is contemplated), or (ii) where Mausoleums are to be constructed in Master Areas 5
and 6, and 2 and 11. No such comparable designation exists with respect to the open space
undesignated sub-area just to the west of the Ascension Slope sub-area in the North-e ast corner
of the cemetery.
So while the term "designated open space" does not appear on the Master Plan Map, this does
not mean, and one cannot logically conclude that any of the open space unidentified sub-areas
which are left "open" (i.e. which lack a specific designation of a sub-area where there are to be
either earth interments, or where a mausoleum is to be constructed) can be developed by Green
2
Hills as it wants, when it wants, and how it wants under the Master Plan, as it presently exists
(i.e. without amendment).
The purpose of the Master Plan Map is to show specific areas were future development is
contemplated. This is consistent with Green Hills' submittal to the City in 2007, in support of the
Master Plan Amendment where the "parameters" (i.e. limits) of the Master Plan are described:
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS
The latest Master Plan was reviewed and approved by the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes in 1991. Prudent cemetery development acknowledges the necessity to
periodically update a master plan to adapt to changing market conditions,
resources, and restrictions. Although every effort has been made to maintain the
original acreages set forth in the approved master plan dated 1991, many areas
of the original master plan have been refined in scope and size. In all cases
where the revised plan differs from the original, design of the structures has been
revised to mitigate the impact on the cemetery and surrounding environment.
The new design parameters for Green Hills Memorial Park call for a unified
design palate for both materials and scale, creating a campus effect throughout
the remaining undeveloped areas.
This is reiterated in the closing paragraph where Green Hills acknowledges that one purpose of
the 2007 Master Plan Amendment was to correct for what Green Hills stated was a "flawed
estimate" for the number of ground interments [i.e "earth interments"] contemplated in 1991;
while keeping faith with the overall density of development of the cemetery as proposed in 1991.
If Green Hills either had or has the unfettered right to develop the cemetery as it wishes, when it
wishes, or how it wishes, it would never have sought a Master Plan (i.e. a conditional use
permit); nor would Green Hills have noted the limitations on the density and intensity of a
development of the cemetery which, as per the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-33,
"called (or" the development of 11.87 acres of"burial sites" and 27.21 acres of"ground burial
sites". "Calling (or" the development of a specified amount of acreage for earth interment sites
means that Green Hills has a limit on the scope, intensity, and density of use contemplated under
the Master Plan. Green Hills does not possess an unfettered right or entitlement to develop any
other sub-areas of the cemetery not contemplated for development. This point is further
reinforced by the fact that Green Hills went out of its way to state to the City in its 2007 Master
Plan Amendment package that what it was proposing by way of the "overall density" of the
cemetery's development was "consistent" with the 1991 Master Plan. Again, Green Hills would
have no reason to even make this comment if Green Hills was of the belief that it possessed an
unfettered right to develop the cemetery for earth interments when and as it as it saw fit. To the
contrary, it would have stated what Ms. Berkowitz is attempting to state here: That the Master
Plan does not control the intensity and density of Green Hills' use of the cemetery. Here is the
quote from the last paragraph of Green Hills' 2007 Master Plan Amendment Application
package. The references to "fill" are to the amount of soil to be moved to accomplish the density
and intensity limitations in the Master [Development] Areas cited with the objective apparently
being that Green Hills could move around a lot of fill in order to meet the density and intensity
objectives ofthe 1991 Master Plan (reiterated in the 2007 Master Plan, as amended).
3
The quantity of fill required to develop Areas Five and Six necessitates a phased
approach, including excavated dirt from ground burials (approximately 80 cubic
yards per week) and the remainder from imported fill. The fill would be imported
at the time of construction of each of the phases of the mausoleum and would be
located at the time of development, and fill and haul routes would be in
accordance with applicable local and state codes and ordinances. It is not the
intent of Green Hills Memorial Park to maintain an on-going importation of fill
material unless it is directly related to the construction of a mausoleum or the
development of a garden. Based on calculations performed for this submittal, the
original 1991 estimate for ground interments was obviously flawed and possibly
may not have taken into consideration multiple dirt movements within the
cemetery. For example, this report calculates the dirt movement for ground
burials as the sum of dirt removed from the excavation for the vault, that same
dirt moved and placed as fill in another area of the cemetery, and that same dirt
again moved when excavated as required for mausoleum development. The
proposed overall density and development of Green Hills Memorial Park is
consistent with the 1991 Master Plan and consistent with local trends and
competition with the Rancho Palos Verdes area.
Therefore, it is just as reasonable to conclude that the absence of an identified sub-area on the
Master Plan Map where development is contemplated and specified reflects, as of the date of the
Master Plan, that no development is contemplated in any sub-area not specifically contemplated
for development.
That is not to say that any such (contemplated) undeveloped sub-areas (open space) can never be
developed; only that the Master Plan, as currently constituted, does not contemplate any such
development in those sub-areas. Rather, it is logical to conclude that any future development in
undesignated (open space) sub-areas on the Master Plan Map could be permitted by way of an
amendment to the Master Plan.
b. Ms. Berkowitz fails to cite the state's definition of"Development" which, when
combined with the City's definition of "Development" in the context of the Cemetery's build-
out, clarifies how Green Hills is supposed to operate.
First the State's definition of"Development" in the cemetery context. The relevant portion of the
law is Section 2302 contained in Title 16, Division 23 of the California Code of Regulations.
Unlike other sub-divisions oflaw, the creation of earth interment sites within a cemetery (which
are sold to the public) are exempt from the provisions of the California Subdivision Map Act
(Government Code 6642(c) Here is how the state defines what constitutes cemetery
"Development":
4
TITLE 16.
DIVISION 23.
PROFESSIONAL AND VOCATIONAL REGULATIONS
CEMETERY AND FUNERAL BUREAU
§ 2302. Definitions
(a) For the purpose of the rules and regulations contained in this chapter, the term
"bureau " means the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau; the term "Code " means Business
and Professions Code; and the term "Act " means the Cemetery Act.
(b) For the purpose of cemetery section development or modification after January
1, 1990, the term "development" means the creation of new interment spaces through
the construction of a mausoleum , columbarium , or an in-ground interment section
(excluding private mausoleums and/or columbariums) and the term "modification"
means the addition, deletion or reconfiguration of interment spaces within an existing
cemetery section , mausoleum , and/or columbarium.
Note : Authority cited: Sections 9630 and 9631 , Business and Profession s Code. Reference : Se c tion
8550(d), Health and Safety Code .
HISTORY
1. New subsection (a) designator, new subsection (b) and new Note filed 11-10-98; operative 12-10-98
(Register 98, No. 46).
2. Change without regulatory effect amending subsection (a} and Note filed 10 -17-2011 pursuant to
section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 2011 , No. 42).
Note that in the context of"earth interments" (which Green Hills inaccurately terms "ground
burials"), "Development" consists of the "creation of new interment spaces through the
construction of. ..... in-ground interment section(s) .... [or their modification by way of] the
addition, deletion, or reconfiguration of interment spaces within an existing cemetery section ..
"
To be noted here is that this definition leaves to the City the ability to control or limit the density
or intensity of use of a given sub-area development site. This conclusion follows from the
reference to possible future modifications by way of the deletion or reconfiguration of earth
interment spaces.
Next, we reference the City's definition of"Development" as set out in Section 17.96.050,
reproduced below.
5
CHAPTER 17.96-DEFINITIONS
17.96.560-Developmen t.
"Development" means, on la nd in or under water, the placement or erectin g of any solid material
or s tru cture; th e discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of a ny gaseous, liqu id, solid or
thermal waste; the grading, removing. dredging, mi11i11g or e.:draction o(anv materials ; the
dumge in tlw densitv or inteusill' o(use o(hmd, including, but not limited to , a subdivision
pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (commencing w ith Section 66410 of the Government
Code) and any other division of land, including lot spli ts, except where the land division is
brou g ht a bout in conn ection with the purchase of s uch la nd by a public agency for ubli c
recreational use; cha nge in the in tensity of use of water or of access thereto ; collstructioll,
reco nstru c tion , d e mo lition or a lt eration of the s ize o(anr structure, in c ludin g a ny fac ili ty of any
private, public or municipal utility, and th e removal or harvesting of major vegetat ion other than
for agricultu ra l purposes. As used in this definition , "structure" in c ludes, but is not limited to,
a ny building, road, pipe, flume , conduit, siphon, aq ued uct, telep hon e line and e lectrica l power
transmission and distribution lin e.
Here , the City is specifically recognizing that any activity which involves the change in the density or
intensity of use of the Cemetery constitutes a "development". So , when Green Hills initially in 1991,
and then in 2007, sought the City's permission to use the cemetery property to inter human remains
(either in the earth or inside a mausoleum or by way of cinerary interments inside a columbarium),
Green Hills was seeking permission to "develop" the Cemetery.
That Green Hills had to seek the City's permission to "develop" the cemetery is beyond question
because Section 17.28.030 of the City's Cemetery Zoning Code makes it explicitly clear that Green
Hills' right to use the cemetery to inter human remains is "conditional'; it is not absolute (or "by
right").
Here is Section 17.28.030:
Chapter 17.28-CEMETERY (C) DISTRICT
:::J 17.28.030 -Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.
r 1 The following uses may be permitted in the cemetery district, pursuant to a
conditional use permit, as per Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):
A.
Burial park for earth interments , mausoleums for vault or crypt interments and/or
columbarium for cinerary interments ;
The Master Plan therefore acts as the "conditional use permit" mandated under Section 17.28.030 .
The Master Plan Map, as currently reflected on the City's Website, is reproduced below. To be noted
is that nowhere does it reference the omission of any density or intensity limits on the use of one or
6
more Master Areas or sub-areas. The areas of the Map which are shaded in darker green are areas
which, as of the 2007 Master Plan revision, were already developed. The lighter green shaded areas
are those where future development (again as of April, 2007) was contemplated. The Mausoleums to
be constructed are noted in "blocks" shaded dark brown.
201 5 ·09, CONDITION OF APPROVAl. 1.2(111 )
Portions of Areas 5 and 6 are highlighted below to reflect the specific reference to "ground burials"
being contemplated for the sub-areas so identified. The Mausoleums authorized to be built in Area 6
are also referenced.
Below those highlighted portions of Master Areas 5 and 6 are portions of Master Area 4 and Master
Area 2. Note the difference in Master Area 4 where the lightly shaded green portion of the Map just
to the west of the (already developed (pre-2007) Ascension Slope sub-area show no provision for any
development to those sub-areas. Unlike the reference to "ground burials" in Master Areas 5 and 6, no
reference to any "ground burials" exists. This, therefore, represents "open space"; presumably
reserved for future development. It does not appear to be counted within the 3.2 acres of
contemplated development and sub-area development of Area 4 to which the Master Plan makes
specific reference. Those sub-areas to be developed are specifically identified as the "Eternal View"
and "Garden of Prayer" sub-areas. It is possible that Green Hills changed the name designation of the
"Eternal View" sub-area to the "Emerald Garden" sub-area, but that fact is not clear. It needs to be
made clear, however.
7
Note Specific Reference to "Ground Burials" in Master Area 5 (consisting of 5.0 Acres) The Garden
of Reflections Mausoleum is already built.
Note again the specific reference to "Ground Burials" (contemplated) in Master Area 6 (consisting of
6.95 acres) and to the proposed Mausoleum Structures whose names are not identified. The reference
to the "Valley of Peace VF' and "Valley of Peace }!''earth interment sub-areas represent sub-areas
which have already been developed (because they are shaded in darker green) earth interment sub-
areas . This demonstrates that the Cemetery's build-out is not opened ended. Sub-areas for earth
8
.... IW\o• • ' \WI Jl •'-A I I r '-' I ••• ........
Note that in Master Area 4 (3.2 acres), the sub-area to the North East labeled "Ascension Slope" is
shaded in dark green. As of the April, 2007 Master Plan Amendment date, Ascension Slope is already
in existence. The undeveloped lightly shaded area to the west (blue arrow) is not identified as a sub-
area to be developed. It is open space, undeveloped. Going further west, the sub-area labeled "Eternal
View" is identified as a sub-area to be developed (Red Arrow). The same exists for the sub-area
further west labeled "Garden of Prayer". Finally to be noted is the reference to the future site of the
Inspiration Slope Mausoleum in Master Area 2 (2.05 acres). The Inspiration Slope Mausoleum is also
specifically identified as a development site in Master Area 2 (consisting of2.05 acres).
So , as noted above, there are specific references to specific sub-areas where "ground burials" (i.e
"earth interments") are contemplated in futUre development. The same applies to the location of all
proposed mausoleums. There also is noted and labeled already existing developed earth interment
sub-areas. Then there are unspecified areas where no development is identified. Ms. Berkowitz
contends the absence of any reference to how these unidentified open space areas are to be developed
means Green Hills is free to develop these unidentified areas without first amending the Master Plan.
9
Ms. Loveys contends there is no basis for this conclusion. In fact, just the opposite obtains from that
contended for by Ms. Berkowitz because the entire purpose of the Master Plan and conditional use
permit protocol is to identify those areas to be developed. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that
an area or sub-area not identified as either already developed or to be developed is to remain "open"
for future development, subject to the Master Plan being later amended.
This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that Green Hills has acknowledged it has no absolute right to
inter human remains on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (See letter of June 16, 2016
reproduced below where Green Hills sought to "develop" the roof of the inspiration slope mausoleum
with below-artificial grade interments, but the City said no and Green Hills agreed that no such roof-
top interment activity (even if lawful under state law which Ms. Loveys contends is not the case)
could take place until Green Hills first obtained a specific "use permit").
The conclusion that undesignated areas on the Master Plan are de facto open space until development
is authorized is further reinforced by the fact that Green Hills first sought and obtained (in 1991) a
conditional use permit (along with specific variances) to inter human remains in the Cemetery; and
then in 2007 had the Master Plan (conditional use permit) amended by way of the Planning
Commission's Resolution (No. 2007-003) to "clarify" the density and intensity of the permitted (earth
interment use). That intent is expressed in Condition 1 (c) which is reproduced below:
Exhibit "B"'
Conditions of Approval
Case No. ZON2003..00086
{Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery
Master Plan Revision)
i. This approva l is a Revision to the Green Hills Master Plan, and shall be consistent
with the "Master' Plan Amendment Submitta l Package" booklet dated January 29,
200"1 , prepared by J . Stuart Todd Inc. Specifically, the Revision allows the following :
c . Clarify that the n umb er of additiona l ground burial sites at Green Hills f'v1emorial
Park i s 14,000 Double Depth Burials (28,000 interments), 400 Singl e Depth B urials
{400 interments), and 408 fam ily estates (9.792 interments);
This equates to 38,192 total earth interments contemplated under the 2007 Master Plan throughout the
cemetery. There is nothing here that says these totals are "advisory"; or for "reference purposes
only".
The idea that the development and "build-out" of the cemetery was and is therefore "conditional",
and not "by right" is further evidenced by the quote from Green Hills' Master Plan Application where
the development of Master Area 4 was described as follows:
10
AREA4 NORTH TE RRACE GARDEN
3.2 Acres Total Developm e nt
Ground Burials
2921 Double Depth Lawn Crypts
Fami ly Estates
200 Family Estates (8 -12 capacity)
The 3.2 acres to be developed in Master Area 4 was identified as "North Terrace Garden" and
referenced a total of3.2 Acres of"Totaf' Development (emphasis added). "Total" does not mean
"maybe"; nor does it connote some "hypothetical" or theoretical number. Rather, under the Master
Plan, until amended, there was to be up to 3.2 acres of"Total" development in Master Area 4 as
specified and identified on the Master Plan Map. If greater development were contemplated beyond
that noted on the Master Plan Map, then Green Hills would have to seek to amend the Master Plan.
It is therefore not plausible, logical, or reasonably possible for Ms. Berkowitz to contend that Green
Hills has an unlimited, unfettered right to develop the cemetery, as it wants , where it wants , when it
wants , or how it wants, regardless of the Master Plan when Green Hills acknowledged in its Master
Plan submittal (supporting the April, 2007 Master Plan Amendment) that its "total" development of
the cemetery was to be limited by the acreage stated for each Master Area (and specifically (by way
of example) Master Area 4 above).
Lastly, here is the "Whereas" paragraph from PC Resolution No. 2007-033 where it is clear that the
Master Plan Amendment identified, delineated, and limited the amount of acreage to be developed. In
the case of "ground burial sites" (i.e . "earth interments"), the total acreage authorized for
development as earth interment sites was 27.21 acres.
P.C. RESOLUTION NO . 2007·33
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM MI SSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING CASE NO . ZON2003-00086
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION, GRAD IN G PERMIT REVISION
AND ENVIRONMEN TAL ASSESSMENT), FOR A REVISION TO THE
MASTER PLAN AT GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY
LOCATED AT 27501 WESTERN AVENUE.
WHEREAS , on February 19, 1991 , the City Counci l adopted Resolution No . 91 -7,
certifying a Mitigated Negati ve Dec laration and approving the Green Hill s Master Plan ,
which called for deve lo pment of the cemetery site over the next 1 00-yea rs, and allowed for
194,340 cubic ya rd s of grading with no Import or export , re-grading of the remain ing 45
undeveloped acres of the 120 acres cemetery , construc tion of 2.44-acres of mausoleum
buildings , 11 .87-acres of burial sites , 27 .21 -acres of ground bur ial sites and 3. 72-acres of
roads ; and, t
c. Ms. Berkowitz's contention that Cemeteries are not required to maintain open space is
an analytical straw-man deflection. Ms. Loveys makes no such contention. Ms. Loveys'
contention is a simple one: That Green Hills be required to abide by the City's Cemetery Zoning
law which limits Green Hills use rights to those which the City finds acceptable under the
conditional permit criteria set out in the City's Cemetery Zoning Code. Under Section
17 .28.030(A) "earth interments" are a permitted use.
The degree (or intensity or density) of the permitted use (i.e. earth interments) is controlled by
the limitations noted above, called out in the Master Plan. Ms. Loveys contends that the City
must make a factual "Finding" in this Compliance Review process that the density and intensity
of Green Hills' use of authorized sub-area development sites is consistent with (i) that which was
contemplated in the Master Plan and (ii) the degree to which such earth interment use was
contemplated in the Master Plan. The Staff Report does not do this; Green Hills has not provided
information to enable the Staff of the public to make such a "Finding", particularly as it relates to
the "Morning Light Valley" and "Inspiration View" sub-areas of Master Area 4.The City has
acknowledged it has no records of the number of earth interments in these two sub-areas; as a
result of which, no factual "Findings" of compliance with the Master Plan can therefore be made.
In fact, because those sub-areas were never identified in the Master Plan as sub-areas where earth
interments (referenced as "ground burials) were to occur, earth interments are not permitted in
these sub-areas until the City has authorized their use as earth interment sub-area development
sites.
Therefore, facts do exist to support a determination that Green Hills is not in compliance with
the Master Plan. No {acts exist upon which either Green Hills or the City can rely in concluding
that Green Hills is in compliance with the 2007 Master Plan, as amended.
Finally, if the City determines that Green Hills is not in compliance, the proper protocol is for the
City to direct Green Hills to apply for a formal amendment to the Master Plan, rather than to
simply "legalize" the use of the Morning Light Valley and Inspiration View sub-areas for earth
interments as part of the compliance review process. That is because (i) the compliance review
process should not be used as a substitute for amending the Master Plan, and (ii) there are
insufficient facts presented to the Council to justifY or support such a conclusion because there is
no baseline by which to measure whether the amount of earth interments authorized equals or
exceeds the number of earth interments actually developed.
12
CLAIM 2 on Page 2 of Ms. Berkowitz's Letter:
Claim 2: A new Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or an amendment to the existing CUP, is required
to permit any new "development of open space."
~ Fact: The City issued a CUP to Green Hills decades ago, which allows the Park to be used
as, among other things, a "[b ]uri a I park for earth interments."5 The CUP covers the entire
cemetery -all of Green Hills -and permits earth interments throughout the Park.
Consistent with the approval of the CUP, Condition of Approval I.e. provides that: "Earth
interments are permitted throughout the cemetery .... " There is no requirement for Green
Hills to obtain a new CUP, or an amendment to its CUP, when it seeks to conduct earth
interments; the existing CUP already allows for such activities.
This is a conclusion in search of a contention. Ms. Loveys does not dispute Green Hills'
conditional right to develop the Cemetery with "earth interments". Ms. Berkowitz is responding
to a contention never made by Ms. Loveys. Ms. Loveys does not contend that the Master Plan
has to be amended each time a sub-area is to be developed. The entire point of the Master Plan is
to provide residents and adjacent property owners with the specifics of how the Cemetery is to be
(conditionally) developed; be it with earth interments or mausoleum construction.
If Ms. Berkowitz is stating that a generic reference in the Master Plan conditions to a generic
right to develop earth interment sub-areas gives Green Hills the right to develop earth interment
sub-area sites anywhere and everywhere without limitation, Ms. Berkowitz is wildly overstating
the case. Again, we are presented with a false logical syllogism equating the concept that
allowing the development (and subdivision) of earth interment sub-area sites "everywhere"
means that Green Hills has been granted the unfettered permission to develop earth interment
sub-area sites "anywhere". This "everywhere= anywhere" concept is belied by the City's
Cemetery Zoning Code itself which incorporates height and set-back requirements. Moreover,
Ms. Berkowitz has to acknowledge that Green Hills cannot develop right up to the property line.
The Master Plan Map and the conditions incorporated therein note the set-back limitations.
So Ms. Berkowitz's citation to a generic right to develop earth interment sites (a right given
under state and local law) in no way equates to the "conditional" limitation and qualification on
such earth interment sub-area development which exists under the City's Cemetery Zoning
Code. Again, what has occurred with respect to Green Hills' development of the "Inspiration
View" and "Morning Light Valley" sub-areas as earth interment sites has !!&J?£.!. been specifically
authorized by the City.
The City acknowledges, as does Green Hills that Green Hills proceeded without specific
authorization to develop these two sub-areas. Green Hills is using these two sub-areas without
any explicit authorization by the City. The Master Plan has the Morning Light Valley and
Inspiration View sub-areas as unidentified open space (See copy of Master Plan Map reproduced
above).
Now compare that Master Plan Map with Green Hills' own Map (revised June 7, 2017) which
identifies the "Morning Light Valley" and "Inspiration View" sub-areas (blue arrow) as
developed sub-areas where earth interment sites have been created and are being used.
13
___ PLOT ------
HSTA
DfZ .m:
The comparable sub-areas on the Master Plan map are noted in the Map reproduced below. The
common point of reference is the sub -area identified as "Ascension Slope" in the north-east
comer of the cemetery which was already in existence as a developed earth interment sub-area at
the time of the 2007 Master Plan Amendment. Note that the area beneath the blue arrow is
lighter green (and thus not developed, and not slated or identified for development) and is
unnamed.
14
. .., ~ ...... ~. .. ·-"·. ,,.., .• ,."""''' r~·····"""
Undesignated sub-area of Area 4 just west of the Ascension Slope sub-area of Master Area 4
which Green Hills has developed with earth interments in contravention of the Master Plan. Note
again this area is shaded light green (open space), but unlike portions of other light green shaded
areas, it is not identified or specified as an area for development of either earth interments or a
mausoleum.
Reproduced below is a Google-Map depiction of the same area which shows the (unauthorized)
development of the "Morning Light Valley" and "Inspiration View" sub-areas. It is lack of
approval of the earth interment development of these sub-area which puts Green Hills in
violation of the Master Plan. The number of earth interments in place needs to be identified (and
"legalized" by way of the submission of a Master Plan Amendment; and the City must determine
the number of earth interment sites in these two sub-areas which are to be specifically authorized
as earth interment sub-area sites. That number then needs to be added to the total allowable earth
interment sub-area sites for Master Area 4 so that the total of the allowed intensity and density of
earth interment development of these sub-areas is determined. Then, subsequent compliance
reviews can be logically the competently undertaken to compare what has been developed in the
way of earth interment sites versus what has been permitted once such a sub-area development
baseline has been created.
15
The Ascension Slope sub-area is noted by the Green Arrow. The Emerald Garden sub-area is
noted by the Green Arrow. The Morning Light and Inspiration View sub-areas are noted by the
Blue Arrow. All of these sub-areas are right on the property line .
Finally, Ms.Berkowitz 's endorsement of the "anywhere= everywhere" analytical disconnect is
obviated and undermined by the fact that Green Hills has already acknowledged in writing back
in June, 2016 , that it has no right to inter human remains on the roof of the Inspiration Slope
Mausoleum (which is depicted by the black side arrow (pointing left) above. If the "anywhere =
everywhere" mantra applied, then Green Hills could use the roof (and artificial grade (as
opposed to natural grade)) of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum roof as yet another sub-area to be
developed without procuring separate permission from the City (or Ms . Loveys , contends, the
state).
The proof that Ms. Berkowitz and Green Hills know that City permission is required to develop
the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum with roof-top (faux-artificial grade) interments is
evidenced by the letter dated June 26, 2016 , reproduced below, where Green Hills acknowledges
that it must seek the City 's permission to make use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope
Mausoleum roof to inter human remains.
Ms. Berkowitz 's argument would allow for the roof-top use ofthe Inspiration Slope Mausoleum
to inter human remains solely premised on the "development anywhere = development
everywhere" analysis she is citing as justifying the unauthorized use ofthe Inspiration View and
Morning Light Valley sub-areas of the cemetery.
Just as with the roof-top use of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum being precluded absent City
permission, the use of the Inspiration View and Morning Light Valley sub-areas for earth
interments are also precluded absent specific City permission.
16
The fact that the Master Plan is "qualified" and "not absolute" is therefore further reinforced by
the reference in the June 2 6, 2 016 , Letter (see red arrow on page two) to the effect that
improvements which are not consistent with the Master Plan must be reviewed by the City. That
review quite naturally would involve a determination whether a revision or amendment to the
Master Plan is neces sary . So , by definition, not every sub-area development is , by right, capable
of being developed by Green Hills without City review.
At a minimum, therefore , a preliminary determination as to whether a proposed sub -area earth
interment development is consistent with the Master Plan must be undertaken (no pun intended).
No such determination was ever made with respect to the Inspiration Vi ew or Morning Light
Valley sub-area earth interment developments. Until such has been done , Green Hills cannot be
said to be in compliance with the Master Plan; particularly given the fact that neither was
specifically reviewed or authorized; having been done at a time when the City was deficient in its
duties and responsibilities (as witnessed by two independent investigations which found that
Green Hills had gamed the sy stem and had practiced deceit on the City with regard to the
construction of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum.
So the bottom line again is that the City must commence and complete a through "Compliance
Review" which takes into account Green Hills activities to date ; and which create s a baseline
against which to measure the density and intensity of allowed (permitted) use and then
determines whether the actual density and intensity of development (be it earth interments or the
construction and use of acreage for mausoleum (vault) use) is consistent with that benchmark.
CLAIM 3 on Page 3 of Ms. Berkowitz's Letter:
C laim 3: The Master Plan authorized a specific number of interments; therefore, the City must
keep a running tally of the number of interments conducted within the Park.
);> Fact: The Master P lan did no such th i ng.
I n s u pport of t h is specious c lai m , the Statement first points to "Condition I.e .," co ntained
in the 2007 Conditions of Approva l, which "clarified" the "additional" number of ground
burials that were expected to occur from th e recontiguration of the cemetery as per the
2007 Master P la n rev isions . The Statement c la ims that this amount represents the total
number of earth interments al lowed in the entire cemetery, and that th is Condition "has
never been formally revised or removed from the Conditions .... "
The Statement is wrong. This Condition was express ly stricken at the City Council's
Annual Rev iew hearing in November, 2015, when the C ity found that the Condition "did
no t serve as a limit on total buria ls" and "did not serve to regulate annua l usage of the
cemetery.' Accordingly, the City Council removed the condition, conc luding that there was
no"need to regu late spec ific interments ... as imp li ed by th is condition."
Why Ms. Berkowitz's contentions are incorrect. Ms. Berkowitz does not provide a page
reference for this quote. There was no "annual review" hearing in November, 2015 . The only
hearing in November, 2015 , was the City Council hearing on Green Hill s' appeal ofthe Planning
17
Commission's determination that Green Hills had violated the Master Plan in constructing and
operating the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum; that Green Hills had to cease all roof-top interments;
and apply for a variance "legalizing" the building envelope being within the allowed set-back,
and apply for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (Master Plan) allowing for the roof-
top interments on the roof of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum. The City Council upheld (for the
most part) the Planning Commission's decision on September 1, 2015.
In Resolution No. 2015-103, dated November 17,2015, the City Council reversed its September
1, 2015, vote, fired the City Attorney (who would not change her legal opinion to adjust it to the
political decision desired by the City Council) and stated Green Hills did not have to apply for a
variance or amended conditional use permit because it had relied on the City's approval of the
permits for the Mausoleum.
There is no explicit revocation of Condition 1 (c) in this November 17, 2015, Resolution (No.
2015-103). So Ms. Berkowitz's references to the revocation of Condition 1(c) are in error.
The Council did attached a list of conditions labeled "Exhibit A". Many of those conditions went
beyond the scope of the narrow issue before the Council. Again, none involved the explicit (or
implicit) revocation of Condition 1 (c).
It was only on August 8, 2018, in Resolution No. 2018-55 dated August 8, 2018, in response to
Ms. Loveys' appeal of the City's approval of the Alta Vista sub-development (currently in
litigation), that the City, (or the first time, stated that the Master Plan is a "reference document
only" and that there are no density or intensity caps. The City Council failed to cite any prior
resolution where this determination was made, or where Condition 1 (c) was expressly and
lawfully revoked, repealed, or replaced. This Resolution was passed in the context of Ms.
Loveys' appeal of the Alta Vista sub-area development. Here is the relevant portion of the
Resolution:
Appeal Reason No.4: "To date, no audit or evaluation of density limits has been
done and therefore, the current density and intensity of use is unknown. Therefore, no
finding can be made that Green Hills is in compliance with the density limitations of the
Master Plan."
The City Council finds that the Master Plan should be used as a reference
document only and all future improvements, as stated in the Conditions of Approval, are
to be publicly noticed and considered by either the Director (unless appealed to the
Planning Commission) or the City Council. The City Council-adopted Conditions of
Approval do not regulate or establish density or intensity caps. Therefore, the proposed
project is in compliance with the Council-approved Conditions of Approval and no
evaluation of density and intensity is required.
Now why would the City Council have to "Find" that the Master Plan was merely a reference
document on August 8, 2018, if the City Council had previously amended the Master Plan to
eliminate any density or intensity caps or limits. Wouldn't the City Council have merely
referenced an earlier action deleting Condition 1 (c) of the 2007 Master Plan Amendment
Resolution (PC Resolution No. 2007-033)? The fact that the City Council did not do so
18
evidences the fact that no such prior lawful Resolution formally amending the Master Plan to
eliminate any caps or limits on the density or intensity of use was ever considered or passed.
Nothing which Ms. Berkowitz cites in her discussion of Claim 3 takes away from the fact that
Green Hills is required to operate under the Green Hills Master Plan, unless and until lawfully
and properly amended. A Compliance Review Hearing where there is no violation cited which is
to be cured is not an open-ended invitation to amend the Master Plan. This issue is the subject of
pending litigation which challenges the City Council's attempt on convert the February 8, 2018 ,
Compliance Review Hearing into a hearing to amend the Master Plan when no formal Master
Plan Amendment was sought or pending. To the extent the Council wishes to adopt Ms.
Berkowitz's position, then the Council should postpone any final decision on whether Green
Hills is in compliance with the Master Plan with respect to its operation of the Morning Light
Valley and Inspiration View earth interment sub -areas pending the outcome or settlement of the
pending litigation.
In the absence of such a deferral of decision, the City's adoption of Green Hills ' position will
result in the need to file a writ petition seeking to overturn the City Council 's decision.
CLAIM 4 on Pages 3/4 of Ms. Berkowitz's Letter:
Claim 4: The City is ignoring the Master Plan because it is not enforcing Claims l-3 , above.
).> Fact: As discussed above, Claims 1-3 are fa lse . T he Master Plan does not set aside
undevelopable "open space." Th e CUP already allows earth interments throughout the
Park, and does not need to be amended for this purpose. The Master Plan does not limit
density.
Moreover, the Master Plan , and particularly its accompanying Conditions of Approval, are
very much in effect, as evidenced by the Annual Reviews the City regularly conducts. The
multiple Conditions of Approval, impacting a myriad of topics ranging from g rading,
security, hours of operations, hou rs ofvisitation, alcohol consumpt ion, music, landscaping,
dust contro l measures , and procedures for approva l of improvements, among many , many
other issues are regularly consu lt ed and followed. They are evaluated each year and
updated as necessary. The C ity requires strict adherence thereto , and co ndu cts inspections
to further ensure compliance. Neig hbors consult the Conditions and advise both the City
Green Hills if they detect anything related to them is amiss . Quite simp ly , the Master Plan
and th e Conditions of Approval are the governing documents for Green Hills ' operations.
They are not ignored .
Why Ms. Berkowitz's contentions are incorrect. Here , Ms. Berkowitz states the Master Plan is
in effect. This is another deflective contention in search of an argument. Ms. Loveys does not
dispute the fact that the Master Plan is in effect. Ms. Berkowitz again repeats the "development
allowed everyone = development permitted anywhere" mantra which, as noted above, is simply
not an accurate statement ofthe legal scope and effect of the Master Plan. Green Hills is subject
to set-back requirements , height requirements, limitations on the ability to use the roof top of
19
Inspiration Slope to inter human remains (not mentioned by Ms.Berkowitz specifically), grading
requirements and limitations, and other specified (acreage) use limitations.
The Master Plan separates the cemetery into Master Areas and identifies specific sub-areas
where Mausoleums are to be constructed (and used), and earth interment sites are to be
developed in the number and intensities and densities noted in the January, 2007 Master Plan
Application and the April, 2007, Planning Commission Resolution and Findings, all organized
by Master Areas; as reflected on the Master Plan Map depicting (i) the already developed Master
and sub-areas of the Cemetery (in dark green), (ii) undeveloped sub-areas shaded in light green
which are identified as ground burial sub-area sites, and (iii) undeveloped sub-areas shaded in
light green which are undesignated as sub-area development sites; and thus cannot be said to
include (as of the date of the Master Plan Map) provision for earth interment development going
forward absent an amendment to the Master Plan (i.e. the light green areas immediately to the
west of the Ascension Slope sub-area in Master Area 4 fall into this open space category).
This is all completely consistent with the first "Whereas" paragraph in PC Resolution No. 2007-
033 passed in April, 2007, which specifically "resolved" to "Amend the Master Plan". Other
than Resolution No. 2007-033, there is no other City Resolution ever passed which specifically
purports in its title to "Amend the Master Plan", or which specifies (i) how the identified acreage
of each of the Master areas and proposed sub-areas are to be developed (i.e. stated in terms of the
amount of acres and (ii) the nature and type of use contemplated for those acres). Condition 1 (c)
(which specifies the number of"additional ground burial sites (to be permitted) at Green Hills
Memorial Park (i.e. 38,192 earth interment sites) still obtains to control the intensity and density
of Green Hills' use ofthe cemetery for earth interments and Mausoleum construction.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons specified herein and in the earlier comments of Sharon Loveys, it is requested
that the City Council find that Green Hills is not in compliance with the Master Plan, particularly
as regards the unauthorized sub-area earth interment development of the "Inspiration View" and
"Morning Light Valley" sub-areas of Master Area 4.
It is also requested that this Compliance Review Hearing cannot yield a result that Green Hills is
in compliance until there is a baseline created which specified the number of earth interment
sites authorized under the Master Plan and compares the number of authorized earth interment
area and sub-area development sites with the number of actual earth interment Master area and
sub-area earth interment development sites actually developed, and the number of authorized
earth interment sites which remain to be developed.
Because Green Hills has not provided this data, the City cannot make any factual "Findings"
with respect to Green Hills' compliance with the Master Plan's mandate. The same applies with
regard to the nature and extent of the Mausoleum construction which has been authorized versus
the nature and extent of the Mausoleum construction which has been completed or is being
undertaken or will be taken.
20
The Compliance Hearing should therefore be postponed on these issues with Green Hills being
directed to provide the foregoing data; at which point, Staff and the public can evaluate the data
and a hearing can be held where appropriate factual findings in support of the conclusion
dictated by the facts can be made.
21
CITY OF
June 28, 20 16
Mr. John Rcsich
Chairman of the Board
Green IIills M.emorial Park
27501 S. \Vestern Avenue
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
I~NCHO I)ALOS VERDES
OFTICL OF ii ll: CITY :VJ;\Ni\Cf:l\
Rc: Inspiration Slope Rooftop Burials; Waiver of CJaims
Dear lv1r. Resich:
This letter memorializes the agreement between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City)
and Green Hills lVfcmorial Pru·k (Green Hills) regarding the placement of concrete vaults on the
rooftop of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (the Mausoleum) by Green Hills. The representatives
of the parties reached an oral understanding to permit placement of concrete vaults on the rooftop
of the Inspiration Slope Mausol.eum provided that Green Hills agrees that the placement of the
vaults does not provide Green Hills with: (i) any entitlement to conduct roollop burials on the
Mausoleum; or (ii) any claims for damages concerning the placement oftlw vaults should the City
deny Green Hills' application fnr rooftop burials on the ~llausoleum. This letter agreement
confirms the oral understandings.
1. Fnctual Dacl{ground
Green Hills operates a memorial park and cemetery located in the City. Green llills'
operation and development of the memorial park is governed by the 2007 Master Plan, including
all later amendments (the Master Plan), and by City Council Resolution No. 2015-12, revising and
amending conditions of approval for Green Hills' Conditional Usc Permit (CUP) and amending
!he ivfaster Plan (the Resolution). The Master Plan contemplates the construction of the
Mausoleum in Area 2 of the memorial park, and further contemplates the possibility of roo !lop
burials thereon.
The CUP's conditions of approval were revised and updated due to a recent controversy
surrounding roollop burials at another of Green Hill's mausoleums, the Pacific Ten-ace/Memorial
rcrracc Mausoleum in Area 11. The rooftop burials in the Pacific Terrace fviausoleum are visible
from the condominium building just north of the structure, and have generated complaints and
litigation. The City has expended significant public resources to resolve the issues surrounding the
rooftop burials, and will expend significant further resources in the foreseeable future to resolve
the litigation.
22
Mr. John Resich
Jun e 28 2 016
Page 2
Green Hills acknowledges tha t the Resolution amende d Green Hills' CUP, which now
provides for an administr ative substantial co mpl iance review so th at, except for improvements
~ consiste nt with th e Ma ster Plan or those subject to the Plarmi.ng Commi ssio n, all improvem ents
___,.. must be reviewed by the Director to de tennine if they substa ntially comply with the Mast er Pla11
(Condition l.k.). Condition l.k. s pecifica lly provide s that review of an app lica ti on for rooftop
burial s can be pe1fom1ed by the Director. The Director can, at his or her discre ti on , refer a ma tt er
directly to the Pl annin g Co mm iss ion. Con dition 2 pro vides th at th e following matters are directly
reviewab le by the Pla nnin g Commission : (i) the construction or modification of a maw;oleum or
ot her signifi cant buildin g, (ii) any significant change to the gradin g, (iii) any deve lo pment of a
future phase of Green Hi lis where the Master Plan has not desi gna ted a deve lopmen t plan or us es,
or (iv) any amen dment to the Master Plan.
Thus, whi le rooftop burials at Inspiration Slo pe are con temp late d in the Master Plan,
Con dition l.k. of th e CUP now provides that Green Hills may not pe r fom1 such bu rials prior to
o bt ain in g adm ini stra tiv e ap pro va l hom the Dir ector or the Plan ning Co mm iss ion, pmsuant to th e
Re so luti on.
Tn antic ip ation of possib le rooftop bur ials, Green Hills ha s purchased and wi th the ora l
underst::mding memorialized here in, insta lled conc rete vaul ts o n the ro of oft he Mausole um. Green
Hill s intends to cover the vau lts with dirt and grO\md cover , per Con di tion 22 of th c CUP. However ,
Gre en Hills has not to date fil ed an application to con duct rooftop burials at the Mausolemn per
Condition I .k of th e CUP. Un less and until Green Hi!J s obtains permission from th e Director or
the Planning Commiss ion , Co ndit ion l.k provi des tha t Green Hills may no t perform roofto p bu rials
at the Mausoleum.
Green Hills does not have a readi ly avai lab le storage space for the vau lts which have been
ordered and has requested that it be allowed to (i) ins tall the vaults on the roof top, and (i i) bury
an d backfill them. The Cit y Manager has agreed that Gree n Hills ma y sto re the em pty co ncrete
bmial vaults on th e roof o[ the Mauso leum, and that such vauiL'> sha ll be bur ied an d the ent ir ety of
the roof shall be backfilled with dirt and gro und cover, provided that Green Hills waive s any claims
for damages against the City related to the placement of the vaults should rooftop bur ials not be
app rove d for the rooftop at the Mausoleu m.
23
Tn anticipation of possible rooftop burials, Green Hills has purchased and w·ith the oral
under~>tanding memorialized herein, installed concrete vaults on the roof of" the Mausoleum. Green
Flills intends to cover the vaults with dili and ground cover, per Condition 22 o!'ltw CUP. However,
Green Hills has not to date filed an application to conduct rooftop burials at the Mausolcmn per
Condition l.k of the CUP. Unless and until Green Hills obtains permission from the Director or
the Planning Commission, Conditionl.k provides that Green Hills may not perform rooftop burials
al the Mausoleum.
Green Hills does not have a readily available storage space for the vaults which have been
ordered and has requested that it be allowed to (i) install the vaults on the roof top, and (ii) bury
and backfill them. The City Manager has agreed that Green ITills may store the empty concrete
burial vaults on the roof of the Mausoleum, and !hal such vaults shall be buried and the entirety of
the roof shall be backfilled with dirt and ground cover, provided that Green Hills waives any claims
for damages against the City related to the placement of the vaults should rooftop burials not be
approved for the rooftop at the Mausoleum.
Accordingly, if Green Hills submits an application to perform rooftop burials at the
Mausoleum, and should the application be approved by the City, the concrete vaults may be
utilized for that purpose. However, in the event that the City decides to deny any application by
Green Hills to perform rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, Green I I ills agrees not
to utilize the buried concrete vaults for rooftop burials unless and until it complie~ with applicable
laws and releases the City from any liability or damages to Green Hills related to the placement of
the vaults arising lrom such decision, and assumes all risks therefore, as provided below.
Based on the above, and on the City's police power expressly granted to il by state lmv,
Green Hills agrees that the provisions of this Agreement arc reasonable and do not impose an
undue burden on Green Hills, and that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent \A;'ith the
agreed-to conditions of approval in the Resolution.
24
Mr. John Rcskh
June 28, 2016
Page 3
2. Wniver of Clnims Against the Citv.
Green Hills acknowledges that any future application i\.)r roottop burials at the Inspiration
Slope Mausoleum is within the City's police power expressly granted to it by state law to grant or
deny and is consistent with Condition 41.a. of the CUP. Further, the City shall not be liable to
Green Hills for any loss or damages related to the placement of the vaults ·whatsoever arising out
of the City's denial of any such application for rooftop burials at Inspiration Slope. Green Hills
waives all rights to fi1ture claims for damages arising out of the City's rejection of Green llills'
application for rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, but reserves the right to legally
challenge the validity of any such denial except as may be otherwise provided herein. Green Hills
further acknowledges that the denial of such an application docs not constitute a compensable
interest that would give rise to a tnkings or other monetary claim.
3. Police Power.
Green Hills acknowledges that the CityJms the authority to grant or deny discretionary
applications for uses \Vithin the City in part based on concerns of public health, safety, and welfare.
GTccn Hills agrees that the City retains its authority to determine the appropriateness of rooH.op
burials at the Mausoleum at a future date.
Nothing in this Agreement, shall limit the City's authority to exercise its police powers or
governmental authotity, or take other approptiate actions to address issues of public health, safety,
and welfare. Green Hills acknowledges that no rights arise under this Agreement as to the City's
police power, including but not limited to, the approval or denial of any required pen11its. Further,
this Agreement does not constitute a development agreement pursuant to Government Code
Section 65864, and thus the Mausoleum remains subject to all applicable statutes, ordinances,
regulations, and codes.
4. Indemnity.
Green Hills, as a material part of the consideration to the City, shall indemnify, defend,
protect and hold the City, its ofticers, directors, agents, representatives, City Council members and
employees (collectively, "City"), harmless from and against all liens and encumbrances of any
nature whatsoever which may arise from this Agreement or in the exercise of Green Hills' rights
hereunder, and from any and all claims, causes of action, liabilities, costs and expenses (including
rea:~onable attorneys' fees), losses or damages arising from City's agreement to allow the
placement of the concrete vaults on the rooftop of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, or any act or
!~til me to act or Green Hills or Green Hills's agents, employees, construction \v'orkers, or invitees
(collectively, "Green Hills"), except those arising out of the sole willfbl misconduct of the City.
5. Waiver of Ch•il Code Section 1542.
By releasing and forever discharging claims both known and unknown as provided herein,
Green Hills expressly waives any and all rights under California Civil Code Section 1542 in
connection with any Claim or Liability against the City. Civil Code Section 1542 provides:
25
Mr. John Rcsich
June 28, 2016
Page 4
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS \VHICH TilE
CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT
1llE TI!'v1E OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHlCH IF KNO\VN BY HIM
MtJST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED IUS SE'lTLE~'lENT WITH THE
DEBTOR.
Green Hills waives and relinquishes any and all rights and benefits which it may have under
Section 1542 of the California Civil Code and any similar code provision or protection. Green
Hills represents that it has performed a full and complete investigation of the t:'1cts pertaining to
this Agreement. Nevertheless, Green Hills acknowledges and is aware that it may hereafter
discover facts in addition to or different than those which it now knows or believes to be true with
respect to potential claims, allegations, events and filets set fot1h herein, but it is Green !!ill's
intention hereby to fully and finally settle and release any and all matters, disputes, and differences,
known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which may exist, as against the City, and in
furtherance of this intention, the release herein given shall be and remain in effect as a full and
complete general release notwithstanding discovery or existence of any such additional or different
facts.
6. Integration; Amendment.
This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the parties and cannot be modified,
tenninated, or rescinded, in \Vhole or in part, except by an instrument in writing signed by nll
parties hereto. Green Hills acknowledges that it was permitted to commence installation of the
concrete vaults based on an oral understanding consistent with the terms hereof and which is
memorialized in this letter agreement. Cireen Hills agrees that it cannot use the fact that it was
allowed to install the vaults pursuant to this agreement against the City or the validity of the City's
actions in any manner in any subsequent legal proceeding.
7. Interpretation and Enforcement; Governing Law.
This Agreement shall be constmcd and interpreted both as to validity and 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 and
maintained in the Superior Cmnt of the County of Los Angeles .. State or California, or in any other
appropriate court with jurisdiction in such county, and the parties agree to submit to the personal
jurisdiction of such comt.
8. Prevailing Party Attomcy Jl'ecs.
In the event that either party shall commence any legal action or proceeding to enforce or
inteq)ret this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to
recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees. The venue for any litigation shall be
Los Angeles County. In the event of any asserted ambiguity in, or dispute regarding, the
interpretation of any matter herein, the interpretation of this Agreement shall not be resolved by
any rules of interpretation providing for interpretation against the party \Vho causes the uncertainty
26
Mr. John Rcsich
June 28,2016
Page 5
to exist or against the dratl.ing party. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under
the Jaws of the State of Cali fomia.
9. Severability.
If any part of this Agreement is held to be illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall be given efTect to the fullest extent reasonably
possible.
Please carefully review the terms or this letter agreement and, if you lind them acceptable,
execute the enclosed copy. This agreement may be executed in counterparts and by tax signature.
By signing beiO\V, Parties represent and wam:mty that they have authority to bind the Parties to
this Agreement. Please return the executed letter agreement by fax and by enclosing an executed
original in the envelope provided.
Cc: City Council
City Clerk
Sincerely,
Doug Willmore
City Manager
I llA VE RECEIVED TilE ORIGINAL OF TillS LETTER AGREEMENT AND
UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND AGREE TO THEM. 1
llA VE TilE AUTIIORITY TO SlGN ON BEHALF OF 1\ND BIND GREEN HlLLS.
Dated: June 28,2016
Chairman or tlw Board
27
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
So Kim
Friday, March 15, 2019 8:06 AM
CityCierk
Fwd: Sharon Loveys Rebuttal to Ellen Berkowitz Letter of February 4, 2019
Attachments: Rebuttal of Sharon Loveys to Repsonse of Green Hills to Compliance Review (March 14, 2019)
-Revised To Incorporate Added Correction on Page 3.pdf
Attached is late correspondence for the public hearing item.
So
Sent from my T-Mobi!c 4G LTE Device
--------Original message --------
From: Noel Weiss <noelweiss@ca.rr.com>
Date: 3/15119 7:55AM (GMT-08:00)
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Sharon Loveys Rebuttal to Ellen Berkowitz Letter of February 4, 2019
So:
One more correction needed to be made on Page 3 of the Rebuttal. ...
Enclosed is the correct version of Sharon's rebuttal. ..... to reflect the correct date of Ellen Berkowitz's letter being referenced
(February 4th) and the correction on page 3.
Please use this version in your circulation of Sharon's rebuttal to the City Council.
Thanks.
Noel
(310) 822-0239
On 3/15/2019 7:44AM, Noel Weiss wrote:
Noel
So:
The Sharon Loveys' rebuttal to Ellen's letter I sent to you yesterday erroneously referenced the date of Ellen's
letter as February 9th.
The enclosed revision corrects that error .. Please substitute this attachment for yesterday's submittal.
Thanks.
Noel
(31 0) 822-0239
( 310) 822-0239
1 J.
REBUTTAL OF SHARON LOVEYS TO CONTENTIONS OF ELLEN BERKOWITZ IN
HER LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2019.
SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIA THE
CITY'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON MARCH 14,2019 IN CONNECTION WITH
THE GREEN HILLS COMPLIANCE REVIEW HEARING CURRENTLY SET FOR
MARCH 19, 2019.
Sharon Loveys rebuts Ms. Berkowitz's counter-contentions as noted below. The reference to
"Claim" is where Mr. Berkowitz characterizes' Ms. Loveys' contention and sub-contention. Ms.
Loveys' rebuttal then follows.
The broader point at issue is whether Green Hills has developed the "Inspiration View" and
"Morning Light Valley" sub-areas of Master Area 4 of the Cemetery in violation of the Master
Plan and without specific use authorization of the City to use these sub-areas for "eatth
interments". Ms. Loveys contends that because these earth interment sub-areas were developed
without the City's specific "use" authorization, Green Hills must cease the sale of interment plots
and cease interring human remains in these sub-areas until either (i) the Master Plan is formally
amended to "permit" the use of these open space areas for earth interments and "legalizing" the
current unlawful use of these sub-areas for earth interments, or (ii) Green Hills procures a
variance allowing for such use despite the zoning violation (consisting ofthe use ofthese
undesignated areas for earth interments when no permit allowing for such use has been
obtained).
In addition, Ms. Loveys contends that the Council cannot make a factual determination of
whether Green Hills is in compliance with the Master Plan in the absence of factual findings,
measured against a baseline, against which a measurement comparison is made between (i) the
number of earth interments actually developed in each Master Area and sub-area of the
Cemetery, as previously authorized under the Master Plan (27.21 acres in the Master Plan), (ii)
the number of earth interments actually developed (and the amount of acreage, both of which are
unknown), and (iii) the number of earth interments remaining to be developed under the Master
Plan (also unknown at this point in time). An analysis and baseline determination was made with
regard to the amount of grading (actual versus authorized); but not as to the number of
authorized earth interments. The same baseline factual analysis is required with respect to the
number of authorized Mausoleum (vault interment) space area (2.44 acres in the Master Plan),
but is Jacking. Until these factual "Findings" are made, it is not possible to evaluate whether
Green Hills is in compliance.
In short, how much ofthe 27.21 acres in the Master Plan for earth interments to be developed has
been developed, and how much remains to be developed? The same question applies with
respect to the degree and intensity and density of authorized Mausoleum development on the
2.44 acres allowed for such development under the Master Plan.
1
CLAIM 1 on Page 1 of Ms. Berkowitz's Letter:
C laim I: Green Hill s is "developing open space" or "space that was des ignated as open
space in the Master Pl an."1 By "deve loping open space," th e R eside nts expla in that Green
H i ll s is "aflow ing earth interm e nts" in a reas the Res idents cla im were se t asid e in the Master
Plan as open area unpennitted for ground b urials . ln other words, they be li eve tha t w hen
Gree n Hi ll s -a cemetery-inters indiv idua ls in the ground in heretofore undeveloped a reas
within the cemetery, Green Hill s is v iolating the Master P lan.
~ Fact : As ide from portions of the Park c a lle d out fo r setbacks, t h ere is 11 0 su ch t hing
as "des ignated open s pace" in the Mas ter P lan nor are there area s expressly set aside
as unpermitted for ground bu r ials . "Open space" is not a concept referenced or
d iscussed in any man ner in th e M a ster P lan , and for good reason : cemeteries are not
required to maintain "open s pac e" or spac e in which ground burials are not perm itt ed.
REBUTTAL TO GREEN HILLS' POSITION THAT THE MASTER PLAN DOES NOT
CONTEMPLATE UNDEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE AREAS OF THE CEMETERY.
W hy M s . Ber kow itz's conten t ion is in correct. A llowin g for th e ea rth int erm ent "d eve lopm ent "
in id e nt ifi ed s ub -areas in th e M as te r P lan do es not equate to permi tt in g unfett ered "deve lopm ent"
of earth inte rm ent sub -areas e ve rywhere in th e ce m ete ry. T he Mast er Pl a n ide ntifi ed s ub -areas to
be d eve lop ed as earth int erm ent s a nd ma usol e um s . O th e r (o pen s pace) areas (i .e . th ose s ub -ar eas
n ot s pec ifi ca ll y d es ig nate d fo r deve lop me nt for earth inte rm ents) were le ft o pen w it ho ut a ny
indi cat ion th ey were to be d eve lo pe d as ea rth inte rm e nt areas or for M au so le um d eve lo pm e nt
und e r thi s 2007 appro ve d ver s io n o f th e M a st e r Pl an . Th e re is no log ical bas is to co nc lud e th at
s uc h unidentified (fo r ea 11h inte rm e nt d eve lopm e nt) s ub-a reas fo r permitte d em 1h inte rm ent
"deve lopm e nt " w ere go in g to be d eve lo pe d a bse nt an ame ndm ent of th e Master Pl a n a llo w in g
for t he earth int erm e nt "d ev e lopm ent " of s uch (o pe n space) unid ent ifie d s ub -areas.
a. Ms . Berk owit z 's u se o f qu otati o n s around the te rm "des ig nate d o pen s pace " refl ec ts
an oth er on e of G ree n Hill s ' ph o ny, mi s leadin g st raw -m an a rg um e nt s ; th e fa lse lo g ica l sy ll og ism
be in g t hat if t he Maste r P lan lac ks th e s pec ifi c la ng uage "d es ig nate d o p en s pace ", it is t herefo re
to be co nc lud e d th at no op en s pace is co nte mpl ate d and t hat G ree n H ill s is free to "deve lop " th e
ce m etery w here it w ant s, wh en it w ant s, a nd ho w it w ant s. T he reaso n th e co nc lu s io n is fault y is
beca use t he Mas te r P la n does speci{i ca llv designate areas , s ub -areas , and tota l acreage w here (i)
th e re a re t o be "earth int erm ent s" (re fe ren ce d as "g ro und burial s" (see be low, for exampl e, where
th e term "gro und bu r ia ls " is referen ce d o n th e M aster Pl an in M aster A reas 5 a nd 6 wh ere futur e
d eve lo pm e nt is contempl ated), or (ii) w he re Ma uso le um s a re to be co nstru cted in Mas ter A reas 5
and 6, and 2 a nd 11 . N o suc h co mp a ra bl e d es ig nat ion ex ists w ith res pec t to th e o pen space
und es ig nated s ub -area ju st to th e west o fth e Asce ns ion S lo pe s ub -a rea in t he N orth -east co rn er
of t he ce m et e ry .
So w hil e th e term "d es ig nat ed o pen s pa ce" do es not app ea r o n th e Maste r Plan Map , thi s do es
not m ean , a nd o ne ca nnot lo g ica ll y co n c lud e th at a ny of t he op e n s pace unid e ntifi ed s ub -a reas
whi c h are le ft "o pe n" (i.e. whi c h lack a specific designation of a s ub -area w here th e re are to be
e ith e r earth interm ent s, o r w he re a m a uso le um is t o be co nstru cte d) can be d eve lop ed by Gree n
2
Hills as it wants, when it wants, and how it wants under the Master Plan, as it presently exists
(i.e. without amendment).
The purpose of the Master Plan Map is to show specific areas were future development is
contemplated. This is consistent with Green Hills' submittal to the City in 2007, in support of the
Master Plan Amendment where the ''parameters" (i.e. limits) of the Master Plan are described:
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS
The latest Master Plan was reviewed and approved by the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes in 1991. Prudent cemetery development acknowledges the necessity to
periodically update a master plan to adapt to changing market conditions,
resources, and restrictions. Although every effort has been made to maintain the
original acreages set forth in the approved master plan dated 1991, many areas
of the original master plan have been refined in scope and size. In, all cases
where the revised plan differs from the original, design of the structures has been
revised to mitigate the impact on the cemetery and surrounding environment.
The new design parameters for Green Hills Memorial Park call for a unified
design palate for both materials and scale, creating a campus effect throughout
the remaining undeveloped areas.
This is reiterated in the closing paragraph where Green Hills acknowledges that one purpose of
the 2007 Master Plan Amendment was to correct for what Green Hills stated was a "flawed
estimate" for the number of ground interments [i.e "earth interments"] contemplated in 1991;
while keeping faith with the overall density of development of the cemetery as proposed in 1991.
If Green Hills either had or has the unfettered right to develop the cemetery as it wishes, when it
wishes, or how it wishes, it would never have sought a Master Plan (i.e. a conditional use
permit); nor would Green Hills have noted the limitations on the density and intensity of a
development of the cemetery which, as per the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-33,
"called for" the development of 11.87 acres of"burial sites" and 27.21 acres of"ground burial
sites". "Calling (or" the development of a specified amount of acreage for earth interment sites
means that Green Hills has a limit on the scope, intensity, and density of use contemplated under
the Master Plan. Green Hills does not possess an unfettered right or entitlement to develop any
other sub-areas of the cemetery not contemplated for development. This point is further
reinforced by the fact that Green Hills went out of its way to state to the City in its 2007 Master
Plan Amendment package that what it was proposing by way of the "overall density" of the
cemetery's development was "consistent" with the 1991 Master Plan. Again, Green Hills would
have no reason to even make this comment if Green Hills was ofthe beliefthat it possessed an
unfettered right to develop the cemetery for earth interments when and as it as it saw fit. To the
contrary, it would have stated what Ms. Berkowitz is attempting to state here: That the Master
Plan does not control the intensity and density of Green Hills' use ofthe cemetery. Here is the
quote from the last paragraph of Green Hills' 2007 Master Plan Amendment Application
package. The references to "fill" are to the amount of soil to be moved to accomplish the density
and intensity limitations in the Master [Development] Areas cited with the objective apparently
being that Green Hills could move around a lot of fill in order to meet the density and intensity
objectives of the 1991 Master Plan (reiterated in the 2007 Master Plan, as amended).
3
The quantity of fill required to develop Areas Five and Six necessitates a phased
approach, including excavated dirt from ground burials (approximately 80 cubic
yards per week) and the remainder from imported fill. The fill would be imported
at the time of construction of each of the phases of the mausoleum and would be
located at the time of development, and flll and haul routes would be in
accordance with applicable local and state codes and ordinances. It is not the
intent of Green Hills Memorial Park to maintain an on-going importation of fill
material unless it is directly related to the construction of a mausoleum or the
development of a garden. Based on calculations performed for this submittal, the
original 1991 estimate for ground interments was obviously flawed and possibly
may not have taken into consideration multiple dirt movements within the
cemetery. For example, this report calculates the dirt movement for ground
burials as the sum of dirt removed from the excavation for the vault, that same
dirt moved and placed as fill in another area of the cemetery, and that same dirt
again moved when excavated as required for mausoleum development. The
proposed overall density and development of Green Hills Memorial Park is
consistent with the 1991 Master Plan and consistent with local trends and
competition with the Rancho Palos Verdes area.
Therefore, it is just as reasonable to conclude that the absence of an identified sub-area on the
Master Plan Map where development is contemplated and specified reflects, as of the date of the
Master Plan, that no development is contemplated in any sub-area not specifically contemplated
for development.
That is not to say that any such (contemplated) undeveloped sub-areas (open space) can never be
developed; only that the Master Plan, as currently constituted, does not contemplate any such
development in those sub-areas. Rather, it is logical to conclude that any future development in
undesignated (open space) sub-areas on the Master Plan Map could be permitted by way of an
amendment to the Master Plan.
b. Ms. Berkowitz fails to cite the state's definition of "Development" which, when
combined with the City's definition of"Development" in the context of the Cemetery's build-
out, clarifies how Green Hills is supposed to operate.
First the State's definition of"Development" in the cemetery context. The relevant portion ofthe
law is Section 2302 contained in Title 16, Division 23 ofthe California Code ofRegulations.
Unlike other sub-divisions of law, the creation of earth interment sites within a cemetery (which
are sold to the public) are exempt from the provisions ofthe California Subdivision Map Act
(Government Code 6642( c) Here is how the state defines what constitutes cemetery
"Development":
4
TITLE 16.
DIVISION 23.
PROFESSIONAL AND VOCATIONAL REGULATIONS
CEMETERY AND FUNERAL BUREAU
§ 2302. Definitions
(a) For the purpose of the rules and regu lations contained in this chapter , the term
"bu reau " means the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau ; the term "Code" means Business
and Professions Code; and the term "Act" means the Cemetery Act.
(b) For t he purpose of cemetery section development or modificat ion after January
1, 1990, the term "deve lopment" means the creation of new interment spaces th ro ugh
the construction of a mausoleum, co lumbarium , or an in-ground interment section
(excluding private mausoleums and/or columbariums) and the term "modification"
means the addition, deletion or reconfiguration of interment spaces within an existing
cemetery section, mausoleum, and/or columbarlum.
Note : Authority cited: Sections 9630 and 9631 , Business and Professions Code. Reference : Section
8550(d), Health and Safety Code .
HISTORY
1. New subsection (a) designator, new subsection (b) and new Note filed 11 -10-98; operative 12-10-98
(Register 98, No. 46).
2. Change without regulatory effect amending subsection (a) and Note filed 10-17-2011 pursuant to
section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 2011 , No. 42).
Note that in the context of"earth interments" (which Green Hills inaccurate ly terms "ground
burials "), "Development" consists of the "creatio n of new interment spaces through the
construction of ...... in-ground interment section(s) .... [or their modification by way of] the
addition , deletion , or reconfiguration of interment spaces within an existing cemetery section ..
To be noted here is that this definition leaves to the City the ability to co ntrol or limit the density
or intensity ofuse of a given s ub -area development site. This conclu s ion follows from the
reference to possible future modifications by way of the deletion or reconfiguration of earth
interment spaces.
Next, we reference the City's definition of "Development" as set out in Section 17.9 6.0 50,
reproduc ed below .
5
CHAPTER 17.96-DEFINITIONS
17.96.560-Development.
"Development" means , on land in or under water, the place ment or erecting of any solid material
or structure; the discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous, liquid, solid or
thermal waste; the gmding. removing, dredging, mining or extraction o(am•materittls ; the
clumr:e in the densitr or intensil!' o(use o{/aud, including, but not limited to , a subdivision
pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Section 66410 ofthe Government
Code) and any other division of land , including lot splits, except where the land division is
brought about in connection with the purchase of such land by a public agency for publ ic
recreational us e; change in the inten s ity of use of water or of access thereto ; construction ,
reconstruction, demolition or alteration of th e size o(am• .'>lmcture , including any facility of any
private, public or municipal utility, and the removal or harvesting of major vegetation other than
for agricu ltural purposes. As used in this definition , "structure " includes, but is not limited to ,
any building, road , pipe, flume , conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone lin e and e lectrical power
transmission and distribution lin e .
Here, the C ity is s pecifically recognizing that any activity which involves the change in the density or
intensity of use of the Cemetery constitutes a "dev e lopment". So , when Green Hill s initially in 1991 ,
and then in 2007 , so ught the City 's permission to us e the cemetery property to inter human remains
(either in the earth or inside a mausoleum or by way of cinerary interments inside a columbarium),
Green Hills was seek ing permi ssion to "develop " the Cemetery.
That Green Hills had to seek the City's permission to "develop " the cemetery is beyond question
because Section 17.28.030 ofthe City 's Cemetery Zoning Code makes it explicitly clear that Green
Hills ' right to use the cemetery to inter human remains is "conditional"; it is not absolute (or "by
right").
Here is Section 17 .28.030:
Chapter 17.28-CEMETERY (C) DISTRICT
:::J 17.28.030-Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.
1 The following uses may be permitted in the cemetery district, pursuant to a
conditional use permit, as per Chapter 17 .60 (Conditional Use Permits):
A.
Burial park for earth interments , mausoleums for vault or crypt interments and/or
columbarium for cinerary interments;
The Master Plan therefore acts as the "conditional use permit" mandated under Section 17 .28.030.
The Master Plan Map , as currently reflected on the City 's Website , is reproduced below. To be noted
is that nowhere does it reference the omission of any density or intensity lim Us on th e u se of one or
6
more Master Areas or s ub-areas. The areas of the Map which are shaded in darker green are areas
which , as of the 2007 Master Plan revision , were already developed. The lighter green shaded areas
are those where future development (again as of April , 2007) was contemplated. The Mausoleums to
be constructed are noted in "blocks" shaded dark brown.
Portions of Areas 5 and 6 are highlighted below to reflect the specific reference to "ground burials "
being contemplated for the sub -areas so identified. The Mausoleums authorized to be built in Area 6
are also referenced.
Below those highlighted portions of Master Areas 5 and 6 are portions of Master Area 4 and Master
Area 2. Note the difference in Master Area 4 where the lightly shaded green portion of the Map just
to the west ofthe (already developed (pre-2007) Ascension Slope sub-area show no provision for any
development to those sub-areas. Unlike the reference to "ground burials " in Master Areas 5 and 6 , no
reference to any "ground burials" exists. This , therefore , represents "open space"; presumably
reserved for future development. It does not appear to be counted within the 3.2 acres of
contemplated development and sub -area development of Area 4 to which the Master Plan makes
specific reference. Those sub-areas to be developed are specifically identified as the "Eternal View "
and "Garden of Prayer" sub-areas. It is possible that Green Hills changed the name designation of the
"Eternal View" sub-area to the "Emerald Garde n" sub-area, but that fact is not clear. It needs to be
made clear, however.
7
Note Specific Reference to "Ground Burials" in Master Area 5 (consisting of5.0 Acres) The Garden
of Reflections Mausoleum is already built.
Note again the specific reference to "Ground Burials" (contemplated) in Master Area 6 (consisting of
6.95 acres) and to the proposed Mausoleum Structures whose names are not identified . The reference
to the "Valley of Peace VF' and "Valley of Peace V'' earth interment sub-areas represent sub-areas
which have already been developed (because they are shaded in darker green) earth interment sub-
areas. This demonstrates that the Cemetery 's build-out is not opened ended. Sub-areas for earth
8
interments are specifically identified. Contrast this with the undeveloped sub-areas of Master Area 4
reproduced below where there is no reference to any "Ground Burials" contemp lated.
'LE~#~~~7.~~eo ' s~aa. or IV) c\o!.er *'411 nor-ttte.rn rer' meter toad
r:~.::.::.;;....:~"iF,_. 8' se:t114Qdo ~Qy#) l\..
.... "' ... ,.,. ···~ ., r ""', ... ._.....
Note that in Master Area 4 (3.2 acres), the sub-area to the North East labe led "Ascension Slope" is
shaded in dark green. As of the April , 2007 Master Plan Amendment date, Ascension Slope is already
in existence. The und eveloped lightly shaded area to the west (blue arrow) is not identified as a sub-
area to be developed. It is open space, undeveloped. Going further west, the sub-area lab eled "Eterna l
View " is identified as a sub-area to be developed (Red Arrow). The same exists for the sub-area
further west lab e led "Garden of Prayer". Finally to be noted is the reference to the future site of the
Inspiration S lop e Mausoleum in Master Area 2 (2 .05 acres). The Inspiration S lop e Mausoleum is a lso
specifica ll y identified as a development site in Master Area 2 (consisting of2.05 acres).
So , as noted above, there are specific references to specific sub-areas where "ground burials" (i.e
"earth interments") are contemplated in future development. The same applies to the location of all
proposed mausoleums. There also is noted and lab e led already existing developed earth interment
sub-areas. Then there are unspecified areas where no development is identified. Ms. Berkowitz
contends the absence of any reference to how these unidentified open space areas are to be developed
means Green Hills is free to develop these unidentified areas without first amending the Master Plan.
9
Ms. Loveys contends there is no basis for this conclusion. In fact, just the opposite obtains from that
contended for by Ms. Berkowitz because the entire purpose of the Master Plan and conditional use
permit protocol is to identify those areas to be developed. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that
an area or sub-area not identified as either already developed or to be developed is to remain "open"
for future development, subject to the Master Plan being later amended.
This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that Green Hills has acknowledged it has no absolute right to
inter human remains on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (See letter of June 16, 2016
reproduced below where Green Hills sought to "develop" the roof of the inspiration slope mausoleum
with below-artificial grade interments, but the City said no and Green Hills agreed that no such roof-
top interment activity (even if lawful under state law which Ms. Loveys contends is not the case)
could take place until Green Hills first obtained a specific "use permit").
The conclusion that undesignated areas on the Master Plan are de facto open space until development
is authorized is further reinforced by the fact that Green Hills first sought and obtained (in 1991) a
conditional use permit (along with specific variances) to inter human remains in the Cemetery; and
then in 2007 had the Master Plan (conditional use permit) amended by way ofthe Planning
Commission's Resolution (No. 2007-003) to "clarifY' the density and intensity of the permitted (earth
interment use). That intent is expressed in Condition l(c) which is reproduced below:
Exhibit "B"
Conditions of Approval
Case No. ZON2003-00086
{Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery
Master Plan Revision)
i. This approval is a Revision to the Green Hills Master Plan, and shall be consistent
with the "Master Pfan Amendment Submittal Package" booklet dated January 29,
2007. prepared by J. Stuart Todd Inc. Specifically, the Revision allows the following:
c. Clarify that the number of additional ground burial sites at Green Hills Memorial
Park is 14,000 Double Depth Burials (28,000 interments), 400 Single Depth Burials
{400 interments), and 408 family estates (9,792 interments);
This equates to 38,192 total earth interments contemplated under the 2007 Master Plan throughout the
cemetery. There is nothing here that says these totals are "advisory"; or for "reference purposes
only".
The idea that the development and "build-out" ofthe cemetery was and is therefore "conditional",
and not "by right" is further evidenced by the quote fi·om Green Hills' Master Plan Application where
the development of Master Area 4 was described as follows:
10
AREA4 NORTH TERRACE GARDEN
3.2 Acres Total Development
Ground Burials
2921 Double Depth Lawn Crypts
Family Estates
200 Family Estates (8 -12 capacity)
The 3.2 acres to be developed in Master Area 4 was identified as "North Terrace Garden" and
referenced a total of3.2 Acres of "Tota/" Development (emphasis added). "Total " does not mean
"maybe"; nor does it connote so m e "hypothetical " or theoretical number. Rather, under the Master
Plan , until amended, there was to be up to 3.2 acres of"Total " development in Master Area 4 as
specified and id ent ifi ed on the Master Plan Map. If greater dev e lopm e nt were contemplated beyond
that noted on the Master Plan Map , then Green Hills would hav e to seek to amend the Master Plan.
It is therefore not plausible, logical , or reasonably possible for Ms. Berkowitz to con t e nd that Green
Hills has an unlimited , unfettered right to develop the cemetery, as it wants, where it wants , when it
wants, or how it wants, regardless of the Master Plan when Green Hills acknowledged in its Master
Plan submittal (supporting the April , 2007 Master Plan Ame ndm ent) that its "total " dev e lopm ent of
the cemetery was to be limited by the acreage stated for eac h Master Area (and specifically (by way
of examp le) Master Area 4 above).
Lastly, here is the "Whereas" paragraph from PC Resolution No. 2007-033 where it is clear that the
Master Plan Amendment id e ntified , delineated , and limited the amount of acreage to be developed. In
the case of "ground burial sites" (i.e. "earth interments"), the total acreage authorized for
development as earth interment sites was 27.2 1 acres.
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2007·33
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING CASE NO. ZON2003-00086
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION, GRADING PERMIT REVISION
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT), FOR A REVISION TO THE
MASTER PLAN AT GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY
LOCATED AT 27501 WESTERN AVENUE.
WHEREAS, on February 19, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-7,
certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the Green Hills Master Plan ,
which called for development of the cemetery site over the next 1 00-years, and allowed for
194,340 cubic yards of grading with no Import or export, re-grading of the remaining 45
undeveloped acres of the 120 acres cemetery, construction of 2.44-acres of mausoleum
buildings. 11 .87-acres of burial sites, 27.21-acres of ground burial sites and 3.72-acres of
roads; and. t
11
c. Ms. Berkowitz's contention that Cemeteries are not required to maintain open space is
an analytical straw-man deflection. Ms. Loveys makes no such contention. Ms. Loveys'
contention is a simple one: That Green Hills be required to abide by the City's Cemetery Zoning
law which limits Green Hills use rights to those which the City finds acceptable under the
conditional permit criteria set out in the City's Cemetery Zoning Code. Under Section
17.28.030(A) "earth interments" are a permitted use.
The degree (or intensity or density) of the permitted use (i.e. earth interments) is controlled by
the limitations noted above, called out in the Master Plan. Ms. Loveys contends that the City
must make a factual "Finding" in this Compliance Review process that the density and intensity
of Green Hills' use of authorized sub-area development sites is consistent with (i) that which was
contemplated in the Master Plan and (ii) the degree to which such earth interment use was
contemplated in the Master Plan. The Staff Report does not do this; Green Hills has not provided
information to enable the Staff of the public to make such a "Finding", particularly as it relates to
the "Morning Light Valley" and "Inspiration View" sub-areas of Master Area 4.The City has
acknowledged it has no records of the number of earth interments in these two sub-areas; as a
result of which, no factual "Findings" of compliance with the Master Plan can therefore be made.
In fact, because those sub-areas were never identified in the Master Plan as sub-areas where earth
interments (referenced as ''ground burials) were to occur, earth interments are not permitted in
these sub-areas until the City has authorized their use as earth interment sub-area development
sites.
Therefore, facts do exist to support a determination that Green Hills is not in compliance with
the Master Plan. No (acts exist upon which either Green Hills or the City can rely in concluding
that Green Hills is in compliance with the 2007 Master Plan, as amended.
Finally, if the City determines that Green Hills is not in compliance, the proper protocol is for the
City to direct Green Hills to apply for a formal amendment to the Master Plan, rather than to
simply "legalize" the use ofthe Morning Light Valley and Inspiration View sub-areas for earth
interments as part of the compliance review process. That is because (i) the compliance review
process should not be used as a substitute for amending the Master Plan, and (ii) there are
insufficient facts presented to the Council to justify or support such a conclusion because there is
no baseline by which to measure whether the amount of earth interments authorized equals or
exceeds the number of earth interments actually developed.
12
C L AIM 2 on P age 2 of Ms. Berkow itz's Letter:
C la im 2 : A new Condi t io na l Use Permi t (CU P) or an a mend men t to the exis tin g CU P, is req u ired
to perm it any new "development of open space."
);. F act : The Ci ty issued a CU P to Green Hill s decades ago, which all ows the Park to be used
as , a mong other th ings , a "[b]uria l park for earth interments ."5 The CU P covers the entire
cemetery -a ll of Green Hi lls -and permi ts earth interme nt s th ro ug hou t t he Park .
Consiste nt with the approval of the CUP , Condition of Approva l I .e. provi des that: "Earth
illterme11 ts are p ermitted tllro llg h o llt the cem etery •••• " There is no requirement for Gree n
Hills to obta in a new CUP, o r an ame ndment to its CUP, w hen it seeks to conduct earth
int erments ; the existing CUP a lready a ll ows for suc h ac t ivities.
T hi s is a c on c lu s ion in sea rc h o f a c onte ntion. Ms . Lo veys do es not di s pute Gree n Hill s'
co nditional ri g ht to d eve lop th e Cem et e ry w ith "earth in te rm e nts ". M s. B e rkow it z is res pondin g
to a conte nti o n ne ve r m a d e by M s. Loveys. M s . Lo veys d oes not conte nd th a t t he Master Pl a n
has t o be am e nd ed eac h tim e a s ub -are a is t o be d e v e lo pe d. Th e e ntire point ofthe Maste r Plan is
to provid e res id e nt s and adj ace nt prope rt y own e r s with th e spe cifi cs o f how th e Cem et e ry is to be
(co ndition a ll y) d e ve lo p e d ; be it w it h e arth inte rm e nts or mau sol e um c on struction .
If M s. B e rkowit z is statin g t hat a gen e ri c re fe ren ce in t he Maste r P la n c ondition s t o a gene ri c
ri g ht to dev e lop ea rth inte rm e nt s ub -areas g ives G ree n Hill s th e ri ght to deve lop eart h int e rm e nt
s ub -area s it es a nywh e re a nd everywhe re without limitation , M s. Be rko w itz is wildl y overst atin g
th e case. A ga in , we a re p rese nt e d with a fa lse lo g ical sy ll og ism e qu atin g th e c on ce pt that
a ll owin g th e d eve lo pm e nt (a nd s ubdi v is io n) o f e arth inte rm e nt sub-a re a s it es "e v e rywh e re "
m ean s th at G reen H ill s has bee n g rante d th e unfette re d pe rmi ss ion to d eve lop earth inte rm e nt
s ub -a re a s it es "anywhere". Thi s "ev e rywh e re= an ywhe re " c once pt is b e li e d by th e C ity 's
Cem et e ry Zonin g Code it se lf w hi c h in corp o rates he ig ht a nd set -bac k re quire m e nt s. More o ve r,
Ms. Berk owit z has to ac kn ow le d ge th a t G ree n Hill s c ann o t deve lop ri g ht up to th e pro pe rt y lin e .
T he Mast e r P la n Map a nd th e c ondition s in corporated t he re in note t he set -bac k limitation s.
So M s. Berk owit z 's c it a tion t o a generic ri g ht to de v e lo p earth inte rm e nt s ites (a ri g ht g ive n
und e r state a nd loca l law) in n o w a y e qu a t es to th e "conditional " limita tion a nd qu a lifi cation o n
s uc h earth inte rm e nt sub -a rea d eve lopm e nt w hi c h ex ist s und e r th e C it y 's Cem et e r y Zo nin g
Cod e . Again , w hat has o cc urre d with respect to Gree n Hill s' deve lopm e nt of th e "In spiration
View" and "Morning Lig ht Va lley " s ub -a reas as earth inte rm e nt s ites has n ever bee n s pec ifi ca ll y
a uth o ri zed by t h e C it y .
T he C it y ackn o wl e d ges, a s do es Green Hill s that Green Hill s pro ceed e d w ithout s pecifi c
a uthori zation to d e velop th ese two sub -areas. G reen Hill s is us in g th ese t w o s ub-areas with o ut
a ny expli c it a uth o ri z ation by th e C ity. The Master Pl a n has th e Morning Lig ht Va lley and
I nsp iration View s ub -are a s as unid entifi e d o pe n s pace (See c opy of M ast e r Plan M a p re produ ced
a b ove).
Now compa re th a t Mast e r Pl a n M ap with G reen Hill s' own Map (rev ise d Jun e 7 , 2 017) w hi ch
id e ntifie s th e "Morning Lig ht Va lley " and "In spiratio n View" s ub -area s (blu e a rrow) a s
d e v e lo p e d s ub-a reas w he re ea rt h int e rm e nt s it es hav e b een c re ate d a nd a re be in g u sed .
13
___ PL OT -------
~STA
lJfZ ~
The comparable sub-areas on the Master Plan map are noted in the Map reproduced below. The
common point of reference is the sub-area identified as "Ascension Slope " in the north-east
corner of the cemetery which was already in existence as a developed earth interment sub-area at
the time of the 2007 Master Plan Amendment. Note that the area beneath the blue arrow is
lighter green (and thus not developed , and not slated or identified for development) and is
unnamed.
14
,., """" ... ~' .. '"' .. ''"'' ···"-"" ,. f """'' ... '-"
Undesignated sub -area of Area 4 just west of the Ascension Slope sub-area of Master Area 4
which Green Hills has developed with earth interments in contravention of the Master Plan. Note
again this area is shaded light green (open space), but unlike portions of other light green shaded
areas , it is not identified or specified as an area for development of either earth interments or a
mausoleum.
Reproduced below is a Google-Map depiction of the same area which shows the (unauthorized)
development of the "Morning Dght Valley" and "Inspiration View" sub-areas. lt is lack of
approval of the earth interment development of these sub-area which puts Green Hills in
violation of the Master Plan. The number of earth interments in place needs to be identified (and
"legalized " by way of the submission of a Master Plan Amendment; and the City must determine
the number of eatth interment sites in these two sub-areas which are to be specifically authorized
as earth interment sub -area sites. That number then needs to be added to the total allowable earth
interment sub-area sites for Master Area 4 so that the total of the allowed intensity and density of
earth interment development of these sub-areas is determined. Then , subsequent compliance
reviews can be logically the competently undertaken to compare what has been developed in the
way of earth interment sites versus what has been permitted once such a sub-area development
baseline has been created.
15
The Ascension Slope sub-area is noted by the Green Arrow. The Emerald Garden sub-area is
noted by the Green Arrow. The Morning Light and Inspiration View sub-areas are noted by the
Blue Arrow. All of these sub-areas are right on the property line.
Finally, Ms . Berkowitz 's endorsement of the "anywhere= everywhere" analytical disconnect is
obviated and undermined by the fact that Green Hills has already acknowledged in writing back
in June, 2016, that it has no right to inter human remains on the roofofthe Inspiration Slope
Mausoleum (which is depicted by the black side arrow (pointing left) above. If the "anywhere=
everywhere" mantra applied, then Green Hills could use the roof (and artificial grade (as
opposed to natural grade)) of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum roof as yet another sub-area to be
developed without procuring separate permission from the City (or Ms . Loveys, contends, the
state).
The proofthat Ms. Berkowitz and Green Hills know that City permission is required to develop
the roof ofthe Inspiration Slope Mausoleum with roof-top (faux-artificial grade) interments is
evidenced by the letter dated June 26 , 2016, reproduced below, where Green Hills acknowledges
that it must seek the City 's permission to make use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope
Mausoleum roofto inter human remains.
Ms. Berkowitz 's argument would allow for the roof-top use of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum
to inter human remains solely premised on the "development anywhere= development
everywhere" analysis she is citing as justifying the unauthorized use of the Inspiration View and
Morning Light Valley sub-areas of the cemetery.
Just as with the roof-top use of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum being precluded absent City
permission , the use of the Inspiration View and Morning Light Valley sub-areas for earth
interments are also precluded absent specific City permission.
16
T he fac t th at t he M as ter P la n is "q ua li fie d " a n d "n ot a b so lut e " is t he re fo re f urt her re in fo rced by
th e refere nce in th e Jun e 2 6 , 2 01 6 , L etter (see re d a rrow o n p age two) to t h e effect t hat
im p rovem e nts w hi c h a re n ot con s iste nt w it h th e Master Pl a n mu st be rev iewed b y th e Ci t y . T hat
rev iew qui te n at ura ll y wo ul d in vo lve a d etermin ation w h eth e r a rev is io n or a m end m e nt t o t he
Maste r P la n is necessary. So , by defini t io n, n ot every s u b-area d eve lopm e nt is , b y ri g ht , capabl e
of be in g deve loped by G reen H ill s w it ho ut C ity r ev iew.
At a m inimum , t he refore, a pre limin ary dete rmin at io n as to w h eth er a p roposed s ub -area eat1h
inte rm e nt d eve lopment is co ns ist e nt w it h t he Master P la n m ust be un d e rtaken (no p un in tended).
No s uc h det e rm inat io n was ever m a d e w ith resp ect to t he In sp iration View o r Morning Light
Va lley s ub -area earth in t e rm e nt deve lo pm e nts . U nt il s u c h h as been do ne , Green H ill s can no t be
sa id to be in co m p li a nce with t he Master P la n ; parti c ul arly g ive n th e fact th at n e it he r was
s p ec ifica ll y revi e wed or a ut ho r ized ; havi ng been do ne at a t im e w he n t h e C it y was d e fic ie nt in it s
d ut ie s a nd re s po n s ibiliti e s (a s witne ssed by t wo indepe nd e nt in vest igat io n s w hi c h fo und t h at
Green H ill s h ad gam e d t he syste m a nd ha d pract iced d e ce it o n t he C it y w it h regard to t he
con st r ucti o n ofth e Pacific Terrace Mauso le um .
So t he botto m lin e aga in is t h at t he C ity mu st co mm e nce an d com p le te a t h ro ug h "Compli a nce
Re v iew" w hi c h takes into acco u nt G ree n H ill s acti v it ies to dat e; a nd w hi c h creates a base lin e
again st w hi c h to measure th e den s ity a nd inten sity of a ll owed (p e rmi tte d) u se a nd t h e n
dete rmin es w hether th e actu a l d e n s it y a nd in ten s it y of deve lopm e nt (be it e art h inte rm e nts o r t he
con st r ucti on a nd u se o f acreage f or m a uso le um (va ul t) use) is co n s istent w ith th at be nc hm ark.
CLAIM 3 on Page 3 of Ms. Berkowitz's Letter:
C laim 3 : The Mas ter P lan authorized a s pecific numbe r o f inte rments; therefore, th e Ci ty mu st
kee p a runnin g ta ll y of th e numb e r o f interm e nts conducted w ithin th e Park.
);;> Fact : Th e Ma ste r P lan did no such thin g .
In support o f this s pec ious c laim , th e Stateme nt fir st po i nt s to "Cond ition I.e .," conta in ed
in the 2007 Condition s of A ppro va l, whi ch "cl ari fi e d" the "add ition a l" numb er o f ground
buri a ls th a t we re exp ec ted to occ u r from th e recon fig uration of th e ce met ery as pe r th e
2007 Mas te r Pl a n rev is ions . Th e Statement c la im s tha t thi s a mount re presents th e tota l
numb e r of ea rth inte rm ents allowe d in t he e ntire cemetery , a nd th a t th is C ondi ti on "has
neve r been form a ll y rev ise d or re moved fr o m th e Condit ions .... "
The Statem e nt is w ron g . Thi s C onditi on was express ly stric ken at th e Ci ty Coun c il 's
A nnu a l Rev iew hearing in Novem ber, 201 5, w he n th e C ity found th at th e C onditi o n "did
not se rve as a limi t on tota l b uri a ls" and "did not serve to regulate a nnu a l usage o f th e
c e me te ry .' According ly, th e C ity Counc il re mo ved the cond ition , co ncluding tha t th ere w a s
no "ne ed t o regulate s peci fi c inte rm e nts ... as imp lied by th is condit io n ."
Why Ms. Berkowitz's contentions are incorrect. Ms . Berko w it z does not p rov id e a page
refere n ce for thi s qu ote. T he re was n o "a nnu a l rev iew" h earin g in Novem ber, 2 01 5 . T he o nl y
hearing in Nove m ber, 2 01 5 , was t he C it y Coun c il heari ng o n G reen H ill s' ap p ea l of t he P la nni ng
17
Commission's determination that Green Hills had violated the Master Plan in constructing and
operating the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum; that Green Hills had to cease all roof-top interments;
and apply for a variance "legalizing" the building envelope being within the allowed set-back,
and apply for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (Master Plan) allowing for the roof-
top interments on the roof of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum. The City Council upheld (for the
most part) the Planning Commission's decision on September 1, 2015.
In Resolution No. 2015-1 03, dated November 17, 2015, the City Council reversed its September
1, 2015, vote, fired the City Attorney (who would not change her legal opinion to adjust it to the
political decision desired by the City Council) and stated Green Hills did not have to apply for a
variance or amended conditional use permit because it had relied on the City's approval of the
permits for the Mausoleum.
There is no explicit revocation of Condition 1 (c) in this November 17, 2015, Resolution (No.
2015-1 03). So Ms. Berkowitz's references to the revocation of Condition 1 (c) are in error.
The Council did attached a list of conditions labeled "Exhibit A". Many of those conditions went
beyond the scope ofthe narrow issue before the Council. Again, none involved the explicit (or
implicit) revocation of Condition 1 (c).
It was only on August 8, 2018, in Resolution No. 2018-55 dated August 8, 2018, in response to
Ms. Loveys' appeal ofthe City's approval ofthe Alta Vista sub-development (currently in
litigation), that the City, (or the first time, stated that the Master Plan is a "reference document
only" and that there are no density or intensity caps. The City Council failed to cite any prior
resolution where this determination was made, or where Condition 1 (c) was expressly and
lawfully revoked, repealed, or replaced. This Resolution was passed in the context of Ms.
Loveys' appeal of the Alta Vista sub-area development. Here is the relevant portion of the
Resolution:
Appeal Reason No.4: "To date, no audit or evaluation of density limits has been
done and therefore, the current density and intensity of use is unknown. Therefore, no
finding can be made that Green Hills is in compliance with the density limitations of the
Master Plan."
The City Council finds that the Master Plan should be used as a reference
document only and all future improvements, as stated in the Conditions of Approval, are
to be publicly noticed and considered by either the Director (unless appealed to the
Planning Commission) or the City Council. The City Council-adopted Conditions of
Approval do not regulate or establish density or intensity caps. Therefore, the proposed
project is in compliance with the Council-approved Conditions of Approval and no
evaluation of density and intensity is required.
Now why would the City Council have to "Find" that the Master Plan was merely a reference
document on August 8, 2018, ifthe City Council had previously amended the Master Plan to
eliminate any density or intensity caps or limits. Wouldn't the City Council have merely
referenced an earlier action deleting Condition 1 (c) of the 2007 Master Plan Amendment
Resolution (PC Resolution No. 2007-033)? The fact that the City Council did not do so
18
evidences the fact that no such prior lawful Resolution formally amending the Master P lan to
e limin ate any caps or limit s on the density or intensity of use was ever considered or passed.
Nothing which Ms. Berkowitz cites in her discussion of C laim 3 takes away from the fact that
Green Hills is required to operate under the Green Hill s Master Plan , unless and until lawfully
and properly amended. A Comp lian ce Revi ew Hearing where there is no violation cited which is
to be cured is not an open-ended invitation to amend the Master Plan. Th is issue is the subject of
pending liti gation w hi ch chall e nges the City Counci l 's attempt on convert the February 8 , 20 18 ,
Compliance Review Hearing into a hearing to amend the Master P lan when no formal Master
Plan Amendment was sought or pending. To the extent the Counci l wishes to adopt Ms.
Berkowitz's position , then the Council should postpon e any final decision on whether Green
Hills is in compliance w ith t he Master P lan with respect to its operation of the Morning Light
Valley and Inspiration View earth interm e nt s ub -areas pending the outcome or settlement ofthe
pending litigation.
In the absence of such a deferral of decision , the City 's adoption of Green Hi ll s' po s ition wil l
result in the need to file a writ petition seeking to ovetturn the City Counci l 's decision .
CLAIM 4 on Pages 3/4 of Ms. Berkowitz's Letter:
Clai m 4: The Ci ty is ignoring the Master Plan because it is not enforcing C lai ms 1-3, above.
);> Fact: As discussed above, C laim s 1-3 are fa lse. The Master Plan does not set aside
undevelopable "open space." The CUP already a llows earth interments throughout the
Park, and does not need to be amended for this purpose. The Master Plan does not limit
densi ty .
Moreover, the Master Plan, and particularly its accompanying Conditions of Approva l, are
very much in effect, as evidenced by the Annual Reviews the City regu larly conducts . The
multiple Condition s of Approva l, impactin g a myriad of topics ranging from grading,
security , hours of operations, hours of vis itat ion , alcoho l consumption, music, landscaping,
dust control measures, and procedures for approval of improvements , among many , many
other issues , are regu larly consulted and followed. They are eva luated each year and
updated as necessary. The City requires strict ad herence thereto, and conducts in spections
to further ensure compliance. Neighbors consult the Condition s and advise both the City
Green Hill s if they detect anything re lated to them is amiss. Quite simply, the Master Plan
and the Condit ion s of Approva l are the governing documents for Green Hills' operation s.
They are not ignored.
Why Ms. Berkowitz's contentions are incorrect. Here , Ms. Berkowitz states the Master Plan is
in effect. This is another deflective contention in search of an argument. Ms. Loveys does not
dispute the fact that the Master P lan is in effect. Ms. Berkowitz again repeats the "development
a ll owed everyone = development pe rmitted anywhere" mantra which , as noted above, is simp ly
not an accurate statement of the legal scope and effect of the Master P lan. Green Hi ll s is subject
to set-back requirements , height requirements , limitations on the ability to use the rooftop of
19
Inspiration Slope to inter human remains (not mentioned by Ms.Berkowitz specifically), grading
requirements and limitations, and other specified (acreage) use limitations.
The Master Plan separates the cemetery into Master Areas and identifies specific sub-areas
where Mausoleums are to be constructed (and used), and emth interment sites are to be
developed in the number and intensities and densities noted in the January, 2007 Master Plan
Application and the April, 2007, Planning Commission Resolution and Findings, all organized
by Master Areas; as reflected on the Master Plan Map depicting (i) the already developed Master
and sub-areas of the Cemetery (in dark green), (ii) undeveloped sub-areas shaded in light green
which are identified as ground burial sub-area sites, and (iii) undeveloped sub-areas shaded in
light green which are undesignated as sub-area development sites; and thus cannot be said to
include (as of the date of the Master Plan Map) provision for emth interment development going
forward absent an amendment to the Master Plan (i.e. the light green areas immediately to the
west of the Ascension Slope sub-area in Master Area 4 fall into this open space category).
This is all completely consistent with the first "Whereas" paragraph in PC Resolution No. 2007-
033 passed in April, 2007, which specifically "resolved" to "Amend the Master Plan". Other
than Resolution No. 2007-033, there is no other City Resolution ever passed which specifically
purports in its title to "Amend the Master Plan", or which specifies (i) how the identified acreage
of each of the Master areas and proposed sub-areas are to be developed (i.e. stated in terms of the
amount of acres and (ii) the nature and type of use contemplated for those acres). Condition 1 (c)
(which specifies the number of"additional ground burial sites (to be permitted) at Green Hills
Memorial Park (i.e. 38,192 earth interment sites) still obtains to control the intensity and density
of Green Hills' use of the cemetery for earth interments and Mausoleum construction.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons specified herein and in the earlier comments of Sharon Loveys, it is requested
that the City Council find that Green Hills is not in compliance with the Master Plan, particularly
as regards the unauthorized sub-area earth interment development ofthe "Inspiration View" and
"Morning Light Valley" sub-areas of Master Area 4.
It is also requested that this Compliance Review Hearing cannot yield a result that Green Hills is
in compliance until there is a baseline created which specified the number of earth interment
sites authorized under the Master Plan and compares the number of authorized earth interment
area and sub-area development sites with the number of actual earth interment Master area and
sub-area earth interment development sites actually developed, and the number of authorized
earth interment sites which remain to be developed.
Because Green Hills has not provided this data, the City cannot make any factual "Findings"
with respect to Green Hills' compliance with the Master Plan's mandate. The same applies with
regard to the nature and extent of the Mausoleum construction which has been authorized versus
the nature and extent ofthe Mausoleum construction which has been completed or is being
undertaken or will be taken.
20
The Compliance Hearing should therefore be postponed on these issues with Green Hills being
directed to provide the foregoing data; at which point, Staff and the public can evaluate the data
and a hearing can be held where appropriate factual findings in supp011 ofthe conclusion
dictated by the facts can be made.
21
June 28, 20 !6
Mr. John Rc:sich
Chairman ofthe Board
Green Ilills Memorial Park
27501 S. Western /\venue
Rancho Palos V<~rdes, CA 90275
He: lnspirat.ion Slope Rooftorl Burials; \Vaivcr of Claims
Dear \·1r. Resich:
'l'his letter memorializes the agreement between the City of Rancho Palos V<.:rdcs (City)
and Clreen Hills Memorial Park (Green Hills) regMding the placement of concrete vaults on the
rooftop ofthe Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (the l'v1ausokum) by Green Hills. The n:prescntativcs
of the parties reached an oral understanding to permit placement of concrete vaults on the rooftop
of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum provided that Green Hills agrees that the placement of the
vaults does noi provide Green Hills with: (i) any entitlement lo conduct rooftop burials on the
Mausoleum; or (ii) any claims for damages concerning the placement of the vaults should the City
deny Green Hills' application f(}r rooftop burials on the Mausoleum. This lcttGr agreement
confirms the oral undersiandings.
t. }?actual Bad,:ground
Green Hills operates a memorial park and <.:cmctery located in the City. Green Hills'
opemtion and development of the mcm.orial park is governed by the 2007 ]\.·laster Plan. including
all later amendments (the l'vlastcr Plan), and by City Council Resolution No. 2015-12, revising and
amending conditions of approval for Urcen Hills" Conditional Use Permit (ClJP) and amending
the !viaster Plan (the Resolution). The Mas.tcr Plan contemplates the construction of the
:vtausoknm in /\rea 2 of the memorinl park, and further contemplates the possibility of roo flop
burials thereon.
The CUP's conditions of approval were revised and updated due to a recent controversy
SltnounJing roonop burials at another of Green Hill's mausoleums, the Pacific Terrace/Memorial
Icrrace Mausoleum in /i.rea 11. The rooftop burials in the Paciilc Terrace Mausoleum arc visible
from the condominium building just north of the structure, and hnve generated complaints and
litigation. The City has expended signiJkant publk resources to resolve the issues surrounding the
rooftop burials, and \Vill expend signi1icanl further resources in the foreseeable future to resolve
the litigation.
22
Mr. John Resic h
June 28 , 20 16
Pagc2
Green Hills acknowledges that the Resolution amended Green Hills' CUP, which now
provides for an administrative substantial comp liance review so that, except for improvements
~ consistent \~ith the Master .Plan or those su?jec_t to the Pbumi1~g Commission: al l improvements
••••
1
must be rev1ewed by the Director to detetmme 1f they substantially comply w1th the Master Plan
(Condition l.k.). Condition l .k. specifically provides that review of an application for rooftop
buria ls can be pe1formed by the Director. The Director can, at his or her discretion, refer a matter
directly to the Planning Commission. Condition 2 provides that the follo\ving matters are directly
reviewab le by the Plann ing Commiss ion: (i) the construction or modifica tion of a mausoleum or
other significant bui lding, (ii) any significant change to the grading, (iii) any development of a
future phase of Green Hills where the Master Plan has not designated a development plan or uses,
or (iv) any amendmen t to the Master Plan.
Thus, while rooftop burials at Inspiration Slope are contemp lated in the 1\'faster Plan,
Condit ion l.k. of the CUP now provides tha t Green Hills may not perform such bur ial s prior to
obtaining administrative approval from the Director or the Planning Commission, pursuant to the
Reso lution .
Tn anticipation of possible rooftop buria ls, Green Hills has purchased and wi th the oral
understanding memorialized herein, installed concrete vaults on thu toof oft he Ma usolellm. Green
Hills intends to cove r the vau lts with dirt and ground cover, per Condition 22 oftlw CUP. However,
Gre en Hills has not to date fi led an application to conduct rooftop burials at the Mausolcwn per
Condition l.k of the CUP. Unless and until Green Hills obtains permission from the Director or
the Planning Commission, Condition 1 .k provides that Green Hills may not perform rooftop buria ls
at the Mausoleum .
Green Hills does nul have a readily availab le storage space for the vaults which have been
ordered and has rcq ucs ted that it be allowed to (i) install the vaults on the roof top, and (ii) bury
and backfill them . The City Manager has ag reed that Green Hills may store the empty concrete
burial vaults on the roof of the Mauso leum , and that such vaults sha ll be buried and the ent irety of
the roof sbaiJ be backfilled with dirt and ground cov er, provided that Green Hills waives any claims
for damages against the City related to the placement of the vaults should rooilop buria ls not be
approved for the rooftop at the Mausoleum.
23
In anticipation of possible rooftop burials, Gn.:cn Hills has purchased and with the oml
understanding memorialized herein, installed concrete vaults on the rnof orthc l'v1ausolcum. Green
Hills imends to cover the vaults with dirt and ground cover, per Condition 22 oftlw CUP. However,
(l:rccn Hills has not to date filed an application to conduct rooftop burials at the fvlausolcum per
Condition I .k of the CUP. Unless and until Green Hills obtains permission from the Director or
the Planning Commission, Condition Lk provides that Green Hills may not perform rooftop burials
at the :rviausoleum.
Green Hills does not have a readily availuble storage space for the vaults \Vhich have been
ordered and has requested that it be allmved to (i) install the vaults on the roof top, and (ii) bury
and backfill them. The City rvtanager has agreed that Green Hills may store the empty concrete
burial vaults on the roof of the Mausoleum, and that such vaults shall he buried and the entirety of
the roof shall be backHllcd with dirt and ground cover, provided th<it Green Hills waives any claims
for damages against the City related to the placement of the vaults should roof'lop hurialil not he
approved for the roo flop at lhc Mausoleum.
Accordingly, if Green Hills submits an application to perform rooftop burials at the
?'v1ausoleum, nnd should the application be approved by the City, the concrete vaults may be
utilized f()r that purpose. Hmvcver, in the event that the City decides to deny any application by
Green Hills lo perform rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope rvlausoleum, Green ! lills agrees not
to utilize the buried concrete vaults for rooftop burials unless and until it complies with applicable
laws and releases the City from nny lia hility or damages to Green Hills related to the plm:,emcnt of
the vauhs arising from ~uch decision, and assumes all risks therefore, as provided below.
Based on the above, and on the City's polic~c pow(~r expressly granted to it by state lmv,
Green Hills agrees that the provisions of this Agreement are reasonable and do not impose an
undue burden on Green Hills, and that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent vv'ith the
agreed-to conditions of approval in the Resolution.
24
rvtr. John Rcsich
June 28, 2016
Page 3
2. \\laiver of Claims Against the Citv.
Green Hills acknowledges that any future application for rooitop burials at the Inspiration
Slope Mausoleum is \Vithin the City's police power expressly granted to it by state la\v to grant or
deny and is consistent vvith Condition 4l.<L of the CUP. Further, the City shall not be Hable to
Green Hills for any loss or damages related to the placement of the vaults whatsoever arising out
of the City's denial of any such application for rooftop burials at Inspiration Slope. Green Hills
waives all rights to future claims tor damages arising out of the City's rejection of Green llills'
application for rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope l'viausokum, but reserves the right to legally
challenge the validity of any such denial except as may be otherwise provided herein. Green Hills
further acknov . .:ledgt:s that the denial of such an application docs not constitute a compensable
interest that \vm!ld give rise to a takings or other monetary claim.
3. Police Power.
Green Hills acknowledges that the City._has tbc authority to grant or deny discretionary
applications tor uses ;,vi thin the City in part based on conccrni.i of public health, safety, and \vel fare.
Green Hills agrees that the City rctainii itii authority to ddermine the appropriateness of rooftop
burials at the Mausoleum at a future date.
Nothing in this Agreement, shall limit the City's authority to exercise its police powers or
governmental authority, or take other appropriate actions to address issues of public health, safi.oty,
and welfare. Green Hills acknowledges that no rights arise under this Agreement as to the City's
police power, including but not limited to, the approval or denial or any required permits. Funber,
this Agreement does not constitut<.: a development agreement pursuant to Government Code
Sedion 65864, and thus the Iv1ausoleum remains subject to all applicable statutes, ordinances,
regulations, and codes.
4. Indcnmitv.
Green Hills, as a material part of the consideration to the City, shall indemnify, defend,
protect and hold the City, its officers, directors, agents, representatives, City Council members and
employees (collectively, "City"), harmless from and against all liens and encumbrances of any
nature whatsoever which may arise from this Agreement or in the exercise or Green Hills' rights
hereunder, and from any and all claims, causes of action, liabilities, costs and expcn1;es (including
reaii<mable attorneys' fees), losses or damages arising from City's agreement to allmv the
pla\:ement of the concrete vaults on the rooftop of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, or any ad or
i1·lilure to act or Green Hills or Green Hills's ag,~nts. employees, construction workers, or invitees
(collcdivdy, "Green Hills"), except those arising out of the sole willful misconduct of the City.
5. Waiver of Civil Code Section 1542.
By releasing and forever discharging claims both known and unkmm:n ~1s provided herein,
Green Hills expressly waives any and all rights under Califcm1ia Civil Code Section 1542 in
connection with any Claim or Liability against the City. Civil Code Section 1542 provides:
25
Iv1r. John Rcsich
June 28, 2016
Page 4
A GENERAL HJ2LEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAL'v1S Vv1lllCH THE
CREDITOR DOES NOT' KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT
THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, \VHlCH IF KNO\VN ilY HlM
MUST HAVE J\·1ATERIALLY AFFECTED IUS SEITLEJ\IlENT WITH THE
DEBTOR.
Green Hills waives and relinquishes any and nll rights and benefits which it may have under
Section 1542 of the California Civil Code and any similar code provision or protection. Clrcen
Hills represents that it has Jl(~rformed a full and complete investig<1tion of the facts pertaining to
this Agreement Neve1iheless, Green Hills acknovdedges and is a\vnre that it mny hereafter
discover t~1ctS in addition to or different thnn those which it nmv knmvs or believes to be true with
respect to potential claims, allegations, events and facts set forth herein, but it is Green Hill's
intention hereby to fully and finally settle and release any and all matters, disputt;s, and differences,
known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, \vhich may exist, as againsl the City, and in
fi.1rlherancc of This intention, the release herein given shall be and remain in effect as a full and
(:omptctc general release notvvithstanding discm'ery or existence of any such additional or different
f:1cts.
6. Integration; Amendment.
This Agreement contains all of the ngreements of the pnrties nne! cannot be modified,
terminated, or rescinded, in \vhole or in pari, except by an instrument in vvriting signed by nil
parties hereto. Green Hills nekml\.vledges that it was permitted to commence installation of the
concrete vaults based on an oral understanding consistent •Nith the !erms hereof and \Vhich is
memorialized in this letter agreement. C1reen Hills agrees that it cannot use the fact that it \:Vas
allowed to install the vaults pursuant to this agreement against the City or the validity of the City's
actions in any manner in any subsequent legal proceeding.
7. Interpretation and Rnforccment; Governing Lal-Y.
This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted both as to vatidity and pcrformnnce of
the parties in accordance with ihe lm:vs 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 and
maintained in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State ofC~alifbrnia, or in any other
appropriate com1 with jurisdiction in such county, and the parties agree to submit to the personal
jurisdiction of such court.
8, Prevailing Party Attornev l<'ees.
ln the event thnt either party shall commence any legal action or proceeding to enforce or
interpret this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to
recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fee~. The venue for any litigation ~hall be
Los Angeles County. In the event of any asserted ambiguity in, or dispute regarding, the
interpretation of any matter herein, the interpretation of this Agreement shall not be resolved b:y
any rules of interpretation providing for interpretation against the pmiy who causes the uncct1ainty
26
Mr. John Rcsich
June 28,2016
Page 5
to exist or against the drafting party. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under
the laws of the State ofCalifomia.
9. Severability.
If any part of this Agreement is held to be illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall be given effect to the fullest extent reasonably
possible.
Please carefully revievv· the terms of this letter agreement and, if you lind them acceptable,
execute the enclosed copy. This agreement may be executed in counterparts and by lax signature.
By signing below. Parties represent and \Vananty that they have authority to hind the Parties to
this Agreement. Please return the executed letter agreement by fax and by enclosing an executed
original in the envelope provided.
Cc: City Council
City Clerk
Sincerely,
Doug Willmore
City tvfanager
1 llA VE RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL OF TillS LETTER AGREEfv1ENT AND
UNDERSTAl'D TilE FOREGOING TER\4S AND CONDITIONS AND AGREE TO TllE!vl.l
IlA VE Tf IE AUTIIORITY TO SIGN ON BEl IALF OF AND BIND GREEN lllLLS.
Dated: June 28, 2016
'l'v RIAL PARK
:;....--~
Chairman of the Board
27
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Good Morning,
So Kim
Monday, March 18,2019 10:31 AM
CityCierk
FW: 6 imges/photos of bulldozer digging grave on mausoleum
Joanna Jones-Reed.pdf
Late correspondence for tomorrow's GH public hearing item.
Sincerely,
So l<im, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
'!::LVjJ!I!.JJl_VCa .g OV
(310) 544-5222
From: Joanna Jones-Reed [mailto:tenuspro@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 12:22 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Subject: 6 imges/photos of bulldozer digging grave on mausoleum
8 feet from our recreation room at Vista Verde and highly inappropriate when a home owner is celebrating
a 100 day of life celebration for their baby!!!!
Ironic, no??
Celebration of Life and then Death 8 feet away!!
... Symbolism of life's intrusions ...
Soh, I am asking that you please put these photos into the overhead screen when I get up to speak this
coming Tuesday. Is that a possibility Soh??
Please advise ... and thanking you in advance for your time and any comments.
Joanna Jones-Reed
31 0-809-9903
1 /