Loading...
20190820 Late Correspondence1 From:Valanca English <valenglish@icloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 6:23 PM To:susanbrooks01@yahoo.com; jduhovic@hotmail.com; CityClerk Subject:Ladera Linda Park Hello, from an invested Ladera Linda resident ‐  I am unable to be at the city council meeting tonight, but I did speak at the public meeting and presentation last month. Since I  don’t believe any city council members were present, I would like to reiterate my position about the park plans as presented.  As well as comment on what the Ladera Linda home owners committee will present to you tonight.   Ladera Linda is a close kit community, a nice, quiet community. Neighbors know and like each other, we socialize, we love our  little neighborhood.  The old Ladera Linda neighborhood school site was not intended to be a park. It is now a park, the only  park in RPV that sits right in a neighborhood. In fact, it sits right in the middle of two neighborhoods.   The plans presented in July looked lovely, overall. The problem is how you balance having a nice facility while not making it a  destination that’s a little too inviting to Los Angeles County.  What the residents of Ladera Linda and Seaview want to avoid is a  park that will draw large amounts of people. We fear a traffic, trash and parking fiasco like the neighbors of Del Cerro Park  have had to deal with, not to mention the potential for crime. We are concerned that large rooms, ample parking and an  amphitheater would invite large events such as weddings, and other such events.   If you want to provide a venue for those types of events, please incorporate them into the plans for the city hall property, or  one of the other parks, which is not in someone’s back yard.   Bringing in crowds on a regular basis  would cause damage to our quality of life as well as the value of our homes. Please be  mindful of this!   Thank you,  Val and Tom English   3577 Vigilance Dr  310‐541‐6890  1 From:Angel Angelow <blagangel@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 5:33 PM To:CityClerk Subject:Re: Ladera Linda Park proposal Dear RPV City Hall staff, My name is Blaga Angelow, resident of Ladera Linda neighborhood for the past 21 years. I am writing to join my Neighborhood Association and all of my Ladera Linda neighbors who have raised concerns in the past months over the scope of proposed changes to our existing neighborhood park. Twenty-one years ago, my husband and I bought a house in Ladera Linda because we wanted to raise our children in a peaceful, clean, private, and safe environment. For the benefit of all families and children now residing in Ladera Linda, we want to see these unique qualities preserved for many years to come. To that end, our new and improved neighborhood park should have limited parking size (not including Forrestal Drive), increased security, improved restrooms, improved display cases with local artifacts and exhibits in the visitor center room, and improved restrooms. Creating additional parking, amphitheater and spaces for large events such as weddings and sunset parties would result in unwanted noise, traffic and problems with trash disposal. We would not like to see Ladera Linda with problems similar to those in the Del Cerro neighborhood and Marylin Ryan Park! I hope that you will hear our neighborhood association's concerns and adjust your plans for improvement of the LL park!! Best regards, The Angelow family 3703 Vigilance Drive Rancho Palos Verdes 1 From:jack fleming <jjfleming2000@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 5:19 PM To:CityClerk Subject:Ladera Linda Hello, I opppose any changes to the neighborhood park in Ladera Linda. The current buildings can be renovated and the footprint should not be changed. The council use to talk about less is more but the project has increased in size without regard to the community most effected, Ladera Linda. The plan being presented now does not consider that the park is in a neighborhood and not accessable from a throughfare. The amount of money being spent on this project is stagering, this money should be saved and spent on infrastructure projects in the City such as the slide area. The facilities in other areas of the hill are under utilized so there is no justification to spend the amount proposed on a project of this magnitude. This is a complete waste of taxpayor money and city employee time. Thank you, Jack Fleming Ladera Linda 1 Subject:FW: Ladera Linda From: Jason Andresen <jasondandresen@gmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:56 PM  To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>  Subject: Ladera Linda  Dear RPV City Council,  My name is Jason Andresen and I am a resident of the Mediterrania neighborhood in Rancho Palos Verdes.  I am writing you to  express my support for approval of the final design for the Ladera Linda Park Project.  I believe the design is a good one and  will serve the residents of the surrounding area well.  Sincerely,  Jason Andresen  31310 Eaglehaven Circle  1 From:Teresa Takaoka Sent:Monday, August 19, 2019 2:50 PM To:Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Park Project From: Kasia Skracic <nursekasia@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 2:38 PM  To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>  Subject: Ladera Linda Park Project  Hello, My name is Katarzyna Skracic. I live in Rancho Palos Verdes on Ganado Drive. I support the Ladera Linda Park Project. I live close to Ladera Linda and would love to see my kids use that area more often. Thank you. Sincerely, Katarzyna Skracic 30311 Ganado Drive, 90275 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK AUGUST 20, 2019 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 Public Comments Nadia Georgieva M 2 Email exchange between City Manager Willmore, Public Works Director Sassoon and Jim Knight Revised Attachment B (Sunbeam Consulting Proposal) In Favor Emails from: Daniel Sears; Svetlana Red; Joe Cruz; Maria Sylvester; Benoit Hochedez and Kaylee Hong; Nhu Ba; Caitlin Hamilton; Tatsiana Sudnikovich-Dixon; Moses Hernandez; Dan Dixon; Ana Coyle; Lynda Sakamaki-Shepard; Walt Goede; Monique White-Dominguez; Ben Bulatao Opposed Emails from: Amanda Wong; Mickey Rodich; Yossef Aelony; Jack Fleming; Marty Foster; Herb Stark; Alice Gunderson **PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, August 19, 2019**. Respectfully submitted, L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\20190820 additions revisions to agenda.docx From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Cc: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 12:20 PM Enyssa Momoli; Nathan Zweizig Amy Seeraty Subject: Attachments: FW: City Council meeting on August 20th RPV CC MEETING_Aug_20_2019.docx Late Correspondence- List under Public Comments From: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 12:18 PM To: 'Nad Gv' <nvgeorg@gmail.com> Cc: Debbie Landes <dlbodesi@fastmail.com>; Sharon Loveys <sharon.loveys@yahoo.com>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: City Council meeting on August 20th Hello Nadia- Thank you for your email and I'm so sorry to hear about your friend. I have copied the City Clerk so that they can distribute your letter to the City Council. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca.gov amys@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5231 From: Nad Gv [mailto:nvgeorg@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 7:13 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Debbie Landes <dlbodesi@fastmail.com>; Sharon Loveys <sharon.loveys@yahoo.com> Subject: City Council meeting on August 20th Dear Amy Seeraty, My name is Nadia, Vista Verde owner and I was informed that you are the person to email with concern or comments about GH or/and City council meetings. I was planning to come and speak tomorrow evening at the meeting for items not on Agenda, but due to a death of a close friend I have to attend a service at that time ... Here I'm sending my concerns and speech. I'll also hand it printed to one of my neighbors to give it to the city council if necessary. Thank you for your help to deliver that to them. See attached. Best Regards, Nadia 1 RPV CC MEETING-AUGUST 20, 2019 PUBLIC COMMENTS Good Evening, Dear city council members, I would like to express my feelings and concerns about the situation with GH. On Sunday, coming home and desiring to be able to relax I was "greeted" with loud music, which I wouldn't listen if the choice was min© It was coming from the top of the mausoleum. I went home and opened the terrace door to get to my terrace. 2 ladies of the people sitting there turned towards me, I just stood up there for a moment and went back feeling so uncomfortable. After a while (I guess someone called because of the noise) I saw a GH guard talking to them. They looked again towards our building (I wasn't outside anymore) but I can feel that they were blaming me for their {{discomfort"! No way to film all this without offending them though (I wish you could see and feel all this!). I just don't want to hurt anybody's feelings. But being indecisive and allowing GH to do what they want is hurting us. I don't understand why no one cares about other people and why the money is ruling the world not compassion and humility. The City can do now what it did before. Facilitate a settlement conference with Green Hills where all of the problems (past, current, and future) can be resolved. A settlement with us and Green Hills and the City can accommodate a permanent resolution on all fronts. We had a CEQA (telephonic) settlement conference in June on the Alta Vista case with the City Attorney's office (June Ailin) and Green Hills (Ellen Berkowitz). After tendering our settlement proposal, nothing has been communicated back to us, from either the City, or Green Hills Why is the City Council not willing to aid and assist in this process? Don't you see that Green Hills continues with the Alta Vista sub-area project to ignore its responsibilities? I wonder why the City repeats the same pattern and practice of allowing Green Hills to ignore the law. Thank you for your time, Nadia, Vista Verde From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, August 20, 2019 3:17 PM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Memoli FW: Consent agenda item I From: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 3:16 PM To: Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com> <knightjim33@gmail.com> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Consent agenda item I Jim, Thanks for you email and concern. However, Council has previously given direction to include EV charging stations in the new parking lot design and construction. They will definitely be included. Doug Sent from my iPad On Aug 20,2019, at 2:44PM, Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com> wrote: Mayor and Council members: I apologize for the very late correspondence. It just came to my attention that the contract for Hess Park improvements (C:onsent agenda item I) does not include any planning for future EV charging stations. On a separate track, your 2019 Goals report number 32a shows the engagement of EcoMotion to produce a feasibility study for EV charging stations at Hess Park. As a former contractor, I can tell you that when you go to all of the trouble and expense of digging up asphalt, it makes sense to install conduit if there is a future use for electrical needs. The electrical wires can be pulled though the conduit at a later date. No need to take a nice fresh parking lot and dig it up again for future planned EV charging stations. So I highly recommend that Consent agenda item I be pulled so that the EV charging station recommendations from EcoMotion be coordinated with this contract. Thank you, Jim Knight 1 I. From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:12 PM Enyssa Momoli; Nathan Zweizig FW: Consent agenda item I From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:11 PM To: Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com> <knightjim33@gmail.com> Cc: James O'Neill <joneill@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Consent agenda item I Mr. Knight: Thanks for reaching out to us. EV Charging stations will be included in the design per direction from the City Council at the April16t11 meeting and per discussions between Ardurra and City staff. The work with regards to EV Charging stations is being spearheaded by Community Development Department staff. However, the design efforts and the implementation will be closely coordinated with Public Works Department. Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments. Regards, Elias K. Sassoon, Director Department of Public Works City of Runcho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: 310-544-5335 From: Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:45 PM To:CC<CC~> Subject: Consent agenda item I Mayor and Council members: I apologize for the very late correspondence. It just came to my attention that the contract for Hess Park improvements (Consent agenda item I) does not include any planning for future EV charging stations. 1 I. On a separate track, your 2019 Goals report number 32a shows the engagement of EcoMotion to produce a feasibility study for EV charging stations at Hess Park. As a former contractor, I can tell you that when you go to all of the trouble and expense of digging up asphalt, it makes sense to install conduit if there is a future use for electrical needs. The electrical wires can be pulled though the conduit at a later date. No need to take a nice fresh parking lot and dig it up again for future planned EV charging stations. So I highly recommend that Consent agenda item I be pulled so that the EV charging station recommendations from EcoMotion be coordinated with this contract. Thank you, Jim Knight 2 July 25, 2019 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Department of Public Works 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Attention: Natalie Chan Sunbeam Consulting 1817 Josie Avenue Long Beach, California 90815 RE: Engineering Design, Survey Monumentation, Construction Oversight, and Optional Certified Arborist Services for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project, Area 1 Dear Ms. Chan: Sunbeam Consulting proposes to provide Professional Services to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for the Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project for Area 1. We appreciate the consideration and opportunity of providing these services to City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The principals of Sunbeam Consulting have decades of experience in community outreach for Capital Improvement projects. We are able to assist the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in the required capacity, and draw upon additional resources if needed during the course of the assignment. We propose teaming with KDM Meridian to provide the professional surveying services for this project, and GS Brothers to provide professional arborist services .. Sunbeam Consulting and KDM Meridian provided similar services for the previous Area 1 pavement rehabilitation project. Because the survey monumentation work was comprehensive on the previous project, and KDM has ready access to the records, the anticipated costs are greatly reduced for this project. Thank you for this opportunity to offer our services to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Should you have questions during the selection process, please contact me at 310.525.0681. Sincerely, r\\n--JJ tQ:at- Aian Braatvedt President Sunbeam Consulting Cot:struction Civil C 0 N S U L T N G City of Rancho Palos Verdes Engineering Design Services for Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project Area 1 Sunbeam Technologies, Inc., doing business as Sunbeam Consulting, provides civil engineering, capital improvement project management, and community outreach services to public agencies and private sectors in addition to our founding energy related services. Sunbeam Technologies, Inc. was established in 2008 to provide engineering design, management, and contracting services to public agencies, business, and private clients. Sunbeam's senior management offers decades of experience on public infrastructure and building projects with Southern California agencies. " Staff t\ssistance p A G E 2 Project Understanding for Area 1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Engineering Design Services for Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project Area 1 The City of Rancho Palos Verdes plans to construct pavement rehabilitation, concrete curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramp and driveway repairs, and signing, striping and marking improvements on residential streets in Road District 1. We have included KDM Meridian on our team to provide for complete survey monumentation services as required by state regulations, including preliminary record research, field investigation, tie-outs, reestablishment after construction, and final recording. GS Brothers will provide the optional arborist services. The City's proposed budget for construction is $3.5M. The anticipated construction cost, including inspection, testing, and other incidental costs will be tailored during design and in consultation with City staff to suit the $3.SM budget. Area 1 Limits p A G E 3 Project Commencement City of Rancho Palos Verdes Engineering Design Services for Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project Area 1 Sunbeam Consulting will meet with City staff to review the project scope of work in detail, finalize document formats, and review the project schedule. Sunbeam will review existing City and utility records, including street improvement, traffic, and storm drain plans, base maps, GIS data, and tax assessor maps. We will establish coordination with the City's designated representative for field investigation and design questions and commence work immediately upon approval. We will begin work as soon as practicable to meet the City's design completion date for this project. We will attend meetings with the City throughout the design effort. Field Inventory and Pavement Analysis Sunbeam Consulting will conduct a field investigation and review of existing concrete and asphalt pavement deficiencies, and inventory existing and proposed improvements throughout the project area. We will coordinate with City staff during the field work to discuss and clarify the intent and budget for construction. We will discuss our field findings with the City, review the various alternatives available for construction improvements and rehabilitation, and based upon these discussions, provide a written report of recommendations for design. Our field investigation work will include: >-Evaluation of conformance to current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, including curb access ramps at intersections and crossings. Note that, depending on the level of construction work performed, federal regulations require that the project area be brought into conformance with current ADA standards. >-A separate evaluation of all intersection corners and recommendations for curb ramps at each ADA non-conforming location. >-Notation of sidewalk and driveway deficiencies including displacements, severe cracking, and potential trip hazards. >-Notation of curb, gutter, and cross gutter deficiencies including displacements and ponding. >-Areas that are displaced due to tree root intrusion will be evaluated by a Certified Arborist. Trees will be noted as suitable for root pruning, for removal, or to lenve ns-is. >-Curb drains will be noted where they are included in sidewalk or curb and gutter replacement work. >-Evaluation of pavement condition, including pavement and base failures, cracking, ponding and displacement. Analysis of possible rehabilitation methods considering cost, time of construction, and expected longevity. Recording of proposed pavement remove and replace (R&R) locations and sizes. >-Notation of damage caused by tree root intrusion. >-Recording of other noticeable deficiencies such as sidewalk obstructions or intrusions, damaged equipment, and broken utility covers. >-Notation of valves and manholes that will need to be adjusted to grade. >-Record traffic signal loop detectors. >-Record existing pavement striping and markings, and verify if they meet current MUTCD standards. >-Coordinate with City GIS staff to update and develop database for associated work. All items will be noted on our field review checklist by street address, on a field map, and discreetly marked where appropriate. Upon conclusion of the field work, or intermittently as work is completed, we will meet with City staff to review our findings, and preliminary construction quantities and costs. p A G E 4 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Engineering Design Services for Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project Area 1 Items requiring further investigation by City staff will be discussed. Areas with significant tree root intrusion will be provided for review by the City Arborist for recommendation. Preliminary Design Sunbeam Consulting will meet with the City to review the findings of our field investigation, the most recent Pavement Management Program pavement analysis, and discuss the various pavement rehabilitation alternatives available. We will discuss the various factors including construction cost, time of construction, finished appearance, inconvenience during construction, and expected longevity. We expect to consider the various slurry seal products (Type I, Type II, and latex rubber content); conventional and rubber asphalt concrete overlays; full depth asphalt concrete; and related application rates and material specifications. Sunbeam Consulting will develop the preliminary design plans based upon the provided electronic base map, field investigation, and project review with the City. Except for streets requiring complete or extensive reconstruction, the street construction plans will be depicted in plan view at a scale as necessary for clarity. Construction limits will be hatched to depict the pavement rehabilitation method, and will include tables showing R&R locations and concrete construction work. Addresses will be shown for each lot for reference. Striping and signing plans will include work related to street signs and posts, pavement striping, markings, raised pavement markers, and traffic signal loop detectors. Detailed striping plans will be provided as needed for clarity. The preliminary design will be submitted to the City, along with the preliminary cost estimate for consideration and review. Plans, specifications and estimate will be based on City provided "boilerplate" and reference documents. Sunbeam will review the recommended design alternatives with the City, and discuss cost savings strategies, such as separating the project into two separate bids, one focused primarily on concrete construction, followed by paving work. Construction Project Phasing The project will be broken into two separate PS&E packages for bidding and construction purposes to minimize project cost and schedule. Phases will include: • PHASE 1: Concrete curb, gutter, sidewalk and driveways repairs; curb ramps; tree removals; pavement repairs • PHASE II: Pavement rehabilitation (overlay and slurry seal work); striping and markings; loop detectors; adjust utilities; sign replacements Final Design Based upon review of the preliminary design, Sunbeam will prepare the final project Plans, Specifications and Estimate. Plans will include the following sheets: );.> The Title Sheet will include the project title, project number, DlgAiert information, Sheet Index, Best Management Practices notes, Vicinity Map, Location Map, and signatures. );.> The Index Map will provide an overview of the entire project area, with an index to the detailed p plan sheets. A G E 5 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Engineering Design Services for Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project Area 1 ~ Notifications will be sent to utility providers. Relevant data will be collected and reflected on the plans. ~ Detail Sheets will include relevant plan details and information that is in addition to referenced Standard Plans, and Typical Sections. ~ Street Improvement plan sheets will include pavement rehabilitation limits depicted by unique hatching/shading patterns; asphalt pavement remove and replace locations; tables listing concrete work, valve and manhole adjustments; tree, tree root locations; existing speed humps; and drainage notes. ~ Striping and Signing plans will include depiction of all striping, markings, and raised pavement markers; traffic signal loop detectors; curb paint; and Construction Notes. Work for installing street signs and posts will be included on separate plan sheets if needed for clarity. ~ Plan sheets will be developed for streets requiring full or extensive reconstruction work. ~ Show house numbers for curb address markings The project plans will include specific references to existing pavement type. Overlay work will note requirements for grinding and leveling course construction. Slurry work will include requirements for pavement preparation and crack sealing. The construction plans will be prepared in AutoCAD format, printed and signed on 24"x36" bond sheets. Electronic files will be provided in .dwg and .pdf format. The final "As Built" plans will be printed and signed on 24"x36" mylar sheets, and submitted to the City upon completion of the project. Project specifications will include technical specifications and special provisions describing the requirements for each bid item and construction requirement. Each bid item will be listed separately, and include a description of work, material requirements, and description of payment unit and method. The specifications will include a construction schedule, which will account for City holidays, street sweeping, trash collection, school calendar, and special events or restrictions. The specifications will include specific requirements for conforming to stormwater pollution protection (Note: No SWPPP is proposed in this scope). Specifications will be prepared with Microsoft Word, printed and signed on 8.5"x11" bond paper. Electronic files will be provided in .doc and .pdf format. Survey monumentation tasks will include monument research, and will update survey reference files with pre-and post-construction survey mapping submitted to the County Surveyor. Field work locations will be collected electronically and imported to the City's GIS database. The Engineer's Estimate will include each bid item, quantity, and estimated cost base on similar recent construction bids. The Estimate will be prepared with Microsoft Excel, printed on 8.5"x11" bond paper. Electronic files will be provided in .xis and .pdf format. Community Outreach/Resident liaison Sunbeam will provide public outreach services, contacting and discussing the project with affected residents, businesses, transit agencies, schools, utilities, and HOA's. Mr. Jim Pugh has been very p A G E 6 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Engineering Design Services for Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project Area 1 successful implementing outreach and liaison services on previous projects within the City, and he is familiar with the affected stakeholders in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Construction Phase Sunbeam will support the City throughout the bid period as needed to answer questions, respond to Requests for Information (RFI's), and prepare bid addenda. We can assist the City in reviewing the bids and recommending award. We will attend the preconstruction meeting. Sunbeam will be available to assist the City during construction if needed to respond to RFI's and answer design related questions. Survey Monumentation The proposed Engineering Design Services for Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project, Area 1 will require survey monument preservation/perpetuation in accordance with statutes (e.g. California Business & Professions Code § 8771). Sunbeam Consulting will coordinate with KDM Meridian to develop a comprehensive search and database of existing survey monuments located within the project limits, and that may be affected by the proposed work. Findings will be provided to the City. We will discuss options for the protection or re-establishment of monuments during and after construction, with the goal of providing the most cost effective and legally conforming end product. All monuments that are set shall be documented and provided to the County Surveyor for recording. NOTE: The nature of existing monumentation is not known at this time. The extent of work necessary to ascertain the current conditions, and the legal requirements for reestablishing survey monuments, is estimated only, and is proposed as an allowance. The estimate may be conservative, and it is likely that the actual cost for monumentation services may be less than noted. We are ready and willing to provide any such necessary surveying work, and to discuss the particular details and legal requirements with City staff. KDM's proposed scope of work includes the following: KDM Meridian Project Understanding The proposed Engineering Design Services for Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project, Area I will require survey monument preservation/perpetuation in accordance with California statutes (e.g. California Business & Professions Code § 8771). Although specific proposed improvements have not been designed at this point, the project generally consists of the removal and replacement of damaged curb & gutter, rectangular dig-outs of degraded asphalt, slurry/micro-surface cap, and/or full grind and overlay of asphalt (each of which has unique considerations). In 2014, KDM performed monument perpetuation services in Area 1 for the previous residential street rehabilitation project, and has continued to perform that service over other Areas (2, Sb, 6, 7, and 8) in the years since. This will be the first time that KDM has returned to a project area where presumably all survey monuments have been identified and are already on the surface. The extent of work necessary for the tie-out and re-establishment of these survey monuments is P presented herein as an estimate. Although the number of monuments is not expected to be significantly A G E 7 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Engineering Design Services for Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project Area 1 different from 2014, the proposed construction (primarily slurry vs. grind & overlay) is unknown at this time and plays a large factor in the work effort required to perpetuate impacted monuments. Based on our 2014 work, Area 1 contains approximately 47 streets with an estimated 289 monuments requiring preservation/perpetuation. Phase /-Research & Preparation The process of executing this preservation/perpetuation project begins with an augmentation of the research completed in 2014. A search will be conducted for any new record documents or maps filed at the City and County offices since the 2014 project. Due to the large number of monuments and associated maps/documents, the project will be split up into manageable zones/segments. This will allow field crews and office staff to manage, complete, and release-for-construction specific portions of the project, which will permit construction crews to continue their work in a timely fashion. Phase II-Pre-Construction Monument Preservation/Perpetuation The field portion of the pre-construction monument preservation has been separated into two steps: Reconnaissance -walk entire project to review the impact of proposed construction on existing survey monuments and ties. Tie-Out -Measure (and set when needed) ties to be able to perpetuate monuments that might be impacted by construction. Impacted monuments and ties are those that fall within 1) grind & overlay 2) asphalt dig-outs and 3) concrete removals The office portion of the pre-construction monument preservation includes the preparation of pre- construction corner records that may be required dependent on the existing ties, existing records, and the results of measurements made. Non-record monuments will be treated similarly, but a corner record must be filed with ties to enter it into the record. To the extent possible, previous corner records will be utilized. Copies of corner records can be provided to the City upon their approval/filing with the County Surveyor, and will be maintained in the KDM project files. Phase Ill-Post-Construction Monument Reset After construction is complete, for those monuments that were destroyed, a new monument will be set in the surface of new paving and a post-construction corner record will be prepared and filed describing the final character of the monument and ties. p A G E 8 KDM Meridian SCOPE OF WORK Phase I -Research & Preparation City of Rancho Palos Verdes Engineering Design Services for Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project Area 1 • Perform record research with the County Surveyor and City of Rancho Palos Verdes. • Organize collected documents/maps by zone/segment for efficient field inventory. Phase II -Pre-Construction Monument Preservation/Perpetuation • Field identify existing monuments and ties and determine if being impacted by proposed construction. • Set additional ties as necessary. • Survey locations of monuments and ties as necessary for the preparation of corner records. • Prepare and file corner records as necessary. Phase Ill-Post-Construction Monument Reset • Reset new monuments in finished surface of dig-out areas and grind/overlay areas where monumentation was destroyed. • Prepare and file corner records as necessary. • Provide/file copies of filed Corner Records. It is estimated that 25% of the streets will be Grind & Overlay with the remainder being Slurry Seal. Additionally, KDM is estimating that 10% of the monuments within Slurry Seal areas will be impacted by dig-outs and concrete removals, and that 70% of the total impacted monuments will require a new pre- construction corner record. Certified Arborist As an optional task, areas that are displaced due to tree root intrusion will be evaluated by a Certified Arborist. Trees will be noted as suitable for root pruning, for removal, or to leave as-is. p A G E 9 Deliverables City of Rancho Palos Verdes Engineering Design Services for Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project Area 1 1. PHASE 1: Plans, Specifications and Estimate for PCC Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and ADA Curb Ramp Improvements. 1A. Preliminary Draft Submittal, Utility Notification 1B. Final Submittal, with Engineers stamp and signature 1C. Attend Preconstruction Meeting 1D. Construction Support 1E. As-Built Plans 2. PHASE II: Plans, Specifications and Estimate for Pavement Rehabilitation Improvements, and Sign Replacement and Installation Improvements. 2A. Preliminary Draft Submittal, Utility Notification 2B. Final Submittal, with Engineers stamp and signature 2C. Attend Preconstruction Meeting 2D. Construction Support 2E. As-Built Plans 3. Survey Monument Investigation and Restoration 3A. Record Research with County and City; Plan for field inventory-AREA 1 3B. Pre-Construction Survey Monument Investigation, Tie-outs, and File Maps with City and County-AREA 1 3C. Post-construction Survey Monument Investigation, Tie-outs, and File Maps with City and County-AREA 1 4. Community Outreach and Resident Liaison Services during Design Phase. Copies of correspondence and notes to file regarding outreach efforts and responses during the design phase of the project. 5. Community Outreach and Resident Liaison Services during Construction Phase. Copies of correspondence and notes to file regarding outreach efforts and responses during the design phase of the project. 6. Optional Certified Arborist Services to review and provide recommendations regarding project impact to trees. Arborist recommendation reports p A G E 10 PROPOSED SCHEDULE Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project Area 1 PROPOSED SCHEDULE-ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES 1. Plans, Specifications and Estimate for PCC Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and ADA Curb Ramp Improvements: 1A. Preliminary Draft Submittal lB. Final Submittal, with Engineers stamp and signature lC. Arborist Services 10. Attend Preconstruction Meeting lE. Community Outreach and Resident Liaison 1F. As-Built Plans 2. Plans, Specifications and Estimate for Pavement Rehabilitation Improvements, and Sign Replacement and Installation Improvements: 2A. Preliminary Draft Submittal 2B. Final Submittal, with Engineers stamp and signature 2C. Attend Preconstruction Meeting 20. Community Outreach and Resident liaison 2E. As-Built Plans 3. Survey Monument Investigation and Restoration 3A. Record Research with County and City; Plan for field inventory-AREA 1 3B. Pre~construction Survey Monument Investigation, Tie- outs, and File Maps with City and County-AREA 1 WEEK City of Rancho Palos Verdes Engineering Design Services for Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project Area 1 completion 3C. Post-construction SUivey Monument Investigation, Tie-continue to outs, and File Maps with City and County-AREA 1 =======-===="-'--'---"--'---"--'--"--'---"--'---'--'--'completion NOTE: Survey schedule is dependent on review time required by the County after submittal p A G E 11 8/15/2019 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project Area 1 Proposed Fee Sr Engr/ PM/CM/PIC Tech/Ad min Rate $ 148.00 $ 126.00 Item I Hours I Hours I Qty I Cost !Amount 1. Phase 1 -Plans, Specifications and Estimate for PCC Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and ADA Curb Ramp Improvements: 1A. Preliminary Draft Submittal 40 32 $ 9,952.00 1 B. Final Submittal, with Engineers stamp and signature 40 4 $ 6,424.00 1 C. Attend Preconstruction Meeting 3.5 2 $ 770.00 1 D. Construction Support and Preconstruction Coordination 24 40 $ 8,592.00 1 E. As-Built Plans 6 2 $ 1,140.00 Subtotal $ 26,878.00 2. Phase 2-Plans, Specifications and Estimate for Pavement Rehabilitation Improvements, and Sign Replacement and Installation Improvements: 2A. Preliminary Draft Submittal 40 24 $ 8,944.00 2B. Final Submittal, with Engineers stamp and signature 40 $ 5,920.00 2C. Attend Preconstruction Meeting 3.5 2 $ 770.00 2D. Construction Support and Preconstruction Coordination 24 40 $ 8,592.00 2E. As-Built Plans 6 2 $ 1,140.00 Subtotal $ 25,366.00 #of Cost per 3. Survey Monument Investigation and Restoration Monts each Totals 3A. Perform Record Research with County and City; Prepare plan for field inventory 300 $ 24.20 $ 7,260.00 3B. Pre-construction Survey Monument Investigation, Tie-outs, and File Maps with City and County 3B.1 Perpetuate Impacted/Destroyed/Buried Monuments 100 $ 313.50 $ 31,350.00 3B.2 Identify Surface/Missing Monuments 200 $ 39.60 $ 7,920.00 3B.3 Office Mapping Prepare Pre-Canst. CRs 70 $ 264.00 $ 18,480.00 3C. Post-construction Survey Monument Investigation, Tie-outs, and File Maps with City and County 3C.1 Reset Destroyed Monuments 100 $ 264.00 $ 26,400.00 3C.2 Prepare Post-Constr. CRs 100 $ 181.50 $ 18,150.00 Subtotal $ 109,560.00 4. Community Outreach/Resident Liaison Services-Design Phase/Pre-construction 60 hours @ $126/hr 60 $ 7,560.00 5. Community Outreach/Resident Liaison Services-Construction Phase Phase 1· 60 days@ 4 hours/day@ $126/hr 240 $ 30,240.00 Phase 2· 45 days @ 8 hours/day@ $126/hr 360 $ 45,360.00 6. Certified Arborlst (Optional) 5. Certified Arborist Design Recommendations (Allowance) $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 TOTAL $ 249,964.00 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:32 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli FW: Ladera Linda Park Project To: Subject: From: Dan Sears <kwldan@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:18 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Park Project Dear Members of the City Council I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes and the father of a boy in Cub Scouts. (I am not able to attend the City Council meeting because I have prior commitments.) I am writing to let you know I support the current redevelopment plan for Ladera Linda Park for the following reasons. • The Ladera Linda Park is the one City facility on this side of the Hill and is a resource for all of the surrounding neighborhoods in this part of the City. • The current proposal is certainly consistent with the "less is more approach" as directed by Council. • I personally would have liked a facility with a gym and a pool, but I also understand that nearby residents are concerned about traffic and disturbances. The current Plan strikes the right balance. • My family would use the Park and play area. We used one of the rooms at the Park for our recent Cub Scout graduation and I am sure it would be used for both Pack and smaller Den Meetings. • I also would like it if there were some educational classes at the Park for both children and adults. It would bring people/community together and is more convenient than having to drive to San Pedro or Torrance. • I don't think parking for the Preserve should be located in the Park. It is a bad idea to take Park space for parking, especially where there is space up on the portion of Forrestal behind the gate. Putting more parking spaces right near the area where the kids play equipment will be located also would be a safety issue. 1 d. • I hope the City makes its decision on the needs of the community for the next 50 years. You can't just add more rooms to a smaller facility if demand increases and I would think the additional expense now would be modest as part of the larger project. • I support the Discovery Room. There are wonderful collections that we are lucky to have. We have visited and enjoy the smaller setting, especially where we then can take a hike and see things we learned about. Thank you, Daniel Sears 10 Golden Spur Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:11 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Memoli FW: Ladera Linda Park Project From: Svetlana Red <svetik_i7i@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:09 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Park Project Hello, My name is Svetlana Nefedova. We live in Rancho Palos Verdes. I have 1st grade boy who is in cub scout. We really like spend time in this Park and support Ladera Linda Park Project. Thank you Svetlana 1 {}. From: Joe Cruz <jocruz1@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:25 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Support for the Ladera Linda Park Project Without Additional Parking for the Preserve Dear Council Members, I'm writing in support of the proposed Ladera Linda Park Project. I've reviewed the plan and believe that it reflects a true compromise between many residents' desire to keep the park small while providing needed facilities and the opportunity for services that all in our community can benefit from. However, I strongly urge the Council to decouple approval of the park plan from the additional parking sought for the preserve. I have two elementary school-aged children. Over the years I've used the park to teach my kids how to play basketball, baseball, tetherball, and soccer. My family and I have visited the Discovery Room on multiple occasions, have attended the Easter-egg hunt and birthday parties at the park, and have used the park to facilitate our kids meeting up with friends from school and the surrounding neighborhood. When my kids were younger, my wife and I often lamented the lack of classes for our kids at the park, such as art, music, and otherwise. The lack of services requires us to seek needed services in other RPV parks, San Pedro, and Torrance. We live in a nice area with great schools. We should not have to leave our neighborhood to provide our kids with the most basic of recreational activities. One element of the plan that I am not particularly fond of is the addition of parking for the preserve. I support the current plan because I do not believe that additional parking spots should be added to the park. However, adding 25 parking spaces to Forrestal Drive is not ideal. Traffic on the weekends is particularly high, at times making it difficult to safely exit our neighborhoods. Adding parking for greater access to the preserve would only exacerbate the problem. I strongly urge the Council to decouple approval of the park plan from the additional parking sought for the preserve. As I mentioned during an earlier information session at the park, one option for providing access while minimizing traffic could be to issue parking passes for city residents only. I'd like to note that placing the Ladera Linda Park Project on the City Council's agenda the week before children in the Palos Verdes School District return to school puts families with school aged children at a disadvantage. Many families in the area are on vacation, as many summer camps and other activities cease to operate this late in the summer. As a result, you're unlikely to see as many in-person supporters of the park plan at today's meeting as you might have otherwise. I urge you to take this into consideration as you decide how to move forward. While we may have family commitments, we do take the time to vote. Respectfully, Joe Cruz 4314 Dauntless Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:29 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli FW: Ladera Linda Project From: maria sylvester <s3mmm1c@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 8:02 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Project Dear Council Member, My name is Mrs. Sylvester and I live in Mediterrania. I am writing to you in support of the Ladera Linda Park Project and I am very interested in seeing that the City move forward with this plan. Sincerely, Mrs. Sylvester 1 ::<. From: Sent: To: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:29AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli Subject: FW: Please approve the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Master Plan From: Benoit Hochedez <hochedez@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 8:35 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> Subject: Please approve the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Master Plan Dear Members of the City Council, We already reached out a few times to speak in favor of the proposed Ladera Linda Park Master Plan in the past couple of years, including at previous city councils. The architecture firm Johnson Favaro along with the help of the city staff have designed a great new community park while taking into account the hopes and fears of the local community and the previous recommendations from the city council. At this time, we hope the City Council can approve the recommendation of the city staff and move forward to the construction drawing of this long-overdue project. This plan strikes a great compromise that the city staff and architects will surely describe in detail during the city council. In anticipation of tomorrow's meeting, we would like to offer some counterpoints to some negative views that have been raised regarding this project : • • • The views and park will attract "outsiders". We have heard that many times throughout this project. "The park should not be too nice", "the views should be hidden", etc. This is such an irrational fear. Any "outsider" coming to this part of the city to admire "our" views would be better off going to Trump or Terranea: larger parking, picnic tables, better trails, better views, whale sighting, possibility to walk down to the beach, to have lunch or dinner (at Terranea), etc. Robert E. Ryan park has great views and has always been a quiet park even on the weekends. Same with Point Vincente. This is a "neighborhood park" and as such, it should only serve the directly adjacent communities. This park is the only community park on the south-east side of the hill, serving more or less the same community as the Mira Catalina school, from Seaview to Miraleste. Most of the Mira Cat parents would tell you that they'd usually rather meet at Bogdanovich (a San Pedro park) than at the Ladera Linda park, which might be closer but has absolutely nothing to offer to parents and their children. This is a great opportunity to change that. And we would love to see a place where elders taking local classes can interact with children playing nearby on the playgrounds. The building is too large for a "neighborhood part<'. We are already talking about a project that has been reduced to its essence: 2 classrooms, 1 meeting room, and 1 MPR! The proposed building is smaller than anything proposed before, and, more importantly, a lot smaller than the actual structures. Moreover, it is streamlined and integrate beautifully within the landscape. Talking to our elderly neighbors who have been 1 {) here since the 70s, most of them tell us that this park used to be a lot busier, lively and was more meaningful to the community. The current use of a long-outdated and deprecated structure should not dictate the future of a new, updated and more appealing structure. This park is an opportunity to offer activities locally, so people (elders, parents with children, etc.) won't have to drive all the way around or down the hill (30mn each way). RPV must see further than the near future and work to bring facilities that will outlast many of us and benefit us, our children and grandchildren. • Nature Preserve Parking. The nature preserve parking is a real and important issue for the Ladera Linda neighborhood but it is a separate issue with potential solutions outside of the park. The park should not become the preserve parking. It's a park and not a parking lot. It's time for the city to look ahead and build facilities for the next 30-40 years, on par with the rising cost of houses (and property taxes) on the hill. Ladera Linda is the only city asset on this side of RPV and deserves to be a great park and facility for the local community, from Seaview to Miraleste. With this project from Johnson Favero, we believe we can have a lively community center with classes, neighborhood gatherings, children playgrounds, useable basketball courts, and ... maybe closer city council. Regards, Benoit Hochedez and Kaylee Hong 3505 Coolheights Dr RPV, CA 90275 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:29 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli FW: Park Project Support From: Nhu Ba <condorhero1983@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 9:00 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Park Project Support To Whom It May Concern: I am a resident of the neighborhood, and there are plenty of us in the neighborhood who support the Park Project. Like many in the area, I have kids and I feel that the current Plan is the right compromise between a park which will serve the area while minimizing the impact on the Ladera Linda neighborhood. Sincerely, A Concerned Resident 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:28AM Enyssa Momoli; Nathan Zweizig FW: Ladera Linda Park Project From: Caitlin Hamilton <caitlinehamilton@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 9:35 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Park Project Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, My name is Caitlin Hamilton and I live here in Rancho Palos Verdes. Having young children myself I am writing in support of the Ladera Linda Park Project. My family and I would like to see a usable park with ample recreation, classroom space and functional programming for the children. I think the current plan accommodates these needs and I would like to see the City move forward in approving the proposed plan. Thank you. Sincerely, Caitlin Hamilton 1 d. From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:28 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Memoli FW: Ladera Linda park From: Tatsiana M Sudnikovich-Dixon <tms_sudn@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 10:01 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Dan Dixon <dan.dixon007@gmail.com> Subject: Ladera Linda park Hello, My name is Tatsiana. I live by the Ladera Linda park. My kids attend MiraCat and participate in boyscout pack 955. Me and my Family are supporters of the park project. It would be beautiful to have kids appropriate new facilities in the park for the local families and local elementary school students. Thank you. T. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: LC -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:28AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Memoli FW: Ladera Linda Project From: moses hernandez <moe2d2@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 10:35 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Project Hello, I support the Ladera Linda project. I live in the area and have a son and daughter who will benefit from the proposed upgrades for years to come. Thanks! Moses 1 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:28 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli FW: Ladera Linda park From: Dan Dixon <dan.dixon007@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 10:40 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda park Hello, My name is Dan Dixon. I live by the Ladera Linda park. My children attend MiraCat and participate in boyscout pack 955. My family and I are supporters of the park project. It would be beautiful to have kids appropriate new facilities in the park for the local families and local elementary school students. Thank you. Dan Dixon 3726 coolheights ----------Forwarded message--------- From: Tatsiana M Sudnikovich-Dixon <tms sudn@yahoo.com> Date: Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 8:01AM Subject: Ladera Linda park To: CC@rpvca.gov <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Dan Dixon <dan.dixon007@gmail.com> Hello, My name is Tatsiana. I live by the Ladera Linda park. My kids attend MiraCat and participate in boyscout pack 955. Me and my Family are supporters of the park project. It would be beautiful to have kids appropriate new facilities in the park for the local families and local elementary school students. Thank you. T. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: LC -----0 rigi na I Message----- Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:28AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Memoli FW: Ladera Linda Park From: Ana Coyle <avalierecoyle@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 10:54 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Park Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, My name is Ana Coyle and I live here in Rancho Palos Verdes. Having young children myself I am writing in support of the Ladera Linda Park Project. My family and I would like to see a usable park with ample recreation, classroom space and functional programming for the children. I think the current plan accommodates these needs and I would like to see the City move forward in approving the proposed plan. Thank you. Sincerely, Ana Coyle Sent from my iPhone 1 /). From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:26 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli FW: Support of Ladera Linda Park Project From: Lynda Sakamaki-Shepard <lynda_sakamaki_shepard@ahm.honda.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:23AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Lynda Shepard <sakamaki.shepard@gmail.com> Subject: Support of Ladera Linda Park Project Hello, My name is Lynda Sakamaki-Shepard and I reside at 3517 Coolheights Drive right above Ladera Linda. I would like to share that my husband and I support the Ladera Linda Park Project. We have two children who are exceedingly active and even on a 'down' day (translation: no soccer, lacrosse, swimming or pole-vaulting) they like to spend time outdoors. My son specifically likes to ride his bike with his buddies to Ladera Linda and then play basketball or soccer. Both kids find the Discovery Room amusing too. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to email me back or you can call me at 310- 783-3297 (work) or 310-490-5085 (cell). I fully support the Ladera Linda Park Project and look forward to having picnics at the park with my family in the future. Thanks, --Lynda Confidentiality Notice: This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender and is intended only for the use of the party or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, retention or the taking of action in reliance on the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and erase all information and attachments. 1 ;<. From: Sent: To: Subject: LC -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Monday, August 19, 2019 5:16 PM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli FW: Ladera Linda From: waltgoede@cox.net <waltgoede@cox.net> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 5:15 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda I support the final plan. I live in the Mediterranean area and can not attend as I am out of town Walt Goede Sent from my iPhone 1 ~. From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 1:44 PM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli FW: Ladera Linda Park project -----Original Message----- From: Monique White-Dominguez <drmod23@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 1:41 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Park project Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, My name is Monique White-Dominguez and I live here in Rancho Palos Verdes. Having 2 young children myself I am writing in support of the Ladera Linda Park Project. My family and I would like to see a usable park with ample recreation, classroom space, and functional programming for our children. I think the current plan accommodates these needs and I would like to see the City council move forward in approving the proposed plan. This park needs to serve our community and especially serve as a safe haven for our children to play & explore. With limited options especially on this side of the hill, the Ladera Linda Park project provides us with renewed focus on our community & our children. I can't wait to see our new park. Our children's children will be very happy that we undertook this endeavor! Thank you in advance for your time. Sincerely, Monique White-Dominguez RPV Resident Sent from my iPhone 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, August 20, 2019 3:25 PM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli FW: Ladera Linda Park Project From: Ben Bulatao <jbenz90@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 3:23 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Park Project Dear Members of the City Council I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes and the father of Jet Bulatao in Cub Scouts. I will not be able to attend the council meeting because I am currently out of town. I am writing to let you know I support the current redevelopment plan for Ladera Linda Park. I think it will benefit our children greatly. Thank you for your time. Ben Bulatao Sent from my iPhone 1 d. From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, August 20, 2019 12:33 PM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli FW: Comment on Agenda Item 2 -Ladera Linda From: Amanda Wong <kiwi_esq@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 12:33 PM To: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov> Subject: Comment on Agenda Item 2 -Ladera Linda Dear City Council Members, I wish I could be here in person tonight so I could look you in the eye and tell you how disheartened I am with the whole Ladera Linda planning process. From the very beginning the LLHOA has been actively involved, not because we oppose change, but because we hoped to have meaningful input into creating a design that would meet the needs of all stakeholders who use the community center, while at the same time addressing our very serious and legitimate concerns about safety, security, traffic and noise. Instead, it feels like the city and the architects have only paid lip service to our suggestions and ignored us. Others will address the specifics of the architectural plans, but my family's primary concern is that the city is building something bigger than necessary, with the intent and goal of increasing programming and use at the park. Ladera Linda is a neighborhood park. It is situated in a residential area directly across the road from where young children --mine and my neighbors -are learning to ride bikes (because, ironically bike riding is not allowed in the park.). We already deal with speeding cars and heavy traffic for the nature preserve and A YSO. The neighborhood cannot tolerate more traffic. Moreover the hikers and dog walkers now park daily -at all hours -on Pirate & Searaven right outside our houses. This is not just a pet peeve, this is a real security issue for my family. Just a few months ago I was cooking dinner in my kitchen. It was warm so my garage door was open and the interior garage door connected to the kitchen was open to circulate the air. I heard a rustling sound in the garage and alerted my husband - he ran to the front door and confronted a stranger who mumbled "sorry I was just urn ... looking for some motor oil" IN MY GARAGE and just a few feet from where my daughters and I were in the house. The man got into a vehicle that was parked in front of my house and thankfully drove away. 1 tJ . He came back the following week and parked across the road on Pirate-right in front of the "No Preserve Parking" sign and asked if he could park on Pirate while he hiked. When I pointed out the sign he moved his car to Searaven in front of Jessica's house, and I was without recourse. I tell this story to hopefully illustrate to you why we are so concerned about anything that will attract more people to our neighborhood. Ask yourself honestly, what if this had happened at your home, to your spouse and children? Would you be so dismissive of our security concerns if a suspicious stranger had been rummaging in YOUR garage with access to YOUR children, then returned the following weekend? I understand it's prestigious and exciting to be involved in managing a huge budget and developing a fantastic new community center, and I understand that you represent the entire city, but being a city council member also requires you to ensure fair treatment for the residents of Ladera Linda and ensuring that we do not bear a disproportionate share of the negative consequences (safety, security, traffic and noise) resulting from your decisions. There are many stakeholders who have needs/wants they hope this new building will serve, but there are only two groups Ladera Linda, and to a lesser extent Seaview who will be NEGATIVELY impacted by your decision. I pray that you please give meaningful consideration to the alternative building plan forwarded by the LLHOA which would serve the programming and docent needs, as well as satisfy the very real concerns of the Ladera Linda community. Amanda Wong Ladera Linda Homeowner Sent from my iPhone 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, August 20, 2019 12:27 PM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli FW: Comments on Ladera Linda Meeting of July 10, 2019 From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 12:23 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esa ssoo n@ rpvca .gov> Cc: Don Bell <DBell90275@aol.com>; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; Herb Stark <Stearman@palosverdes.com>; Jessica Vlaco <vlacoS@cox.net> <vlacoS@cox.net>; Marty Foster <martycrna@gmail.com>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> Subject: Comments on Ladera Linda Meeting of July 10, 2019 Before you, the City Council, make your final decisions on what the new Ladera Linda Neighborhood Park should look like, we hope you will listen to what we feel is important for this new facility. Please remember that this is a Neighborhood Park and not a regional park. Our community, LLHOA, is adjacent to this Park and we are the most affected, by what is built there. We have always stated our issues of concern as being: a) park building & size, b) traffic, c) noise and d) parking. This discussion has been going on for almost 4 years and we have attended many workshops, private meetings, exchanged countless emails. and so far our City has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on this project. For our LLHOA, It has always boiled down to building size and the number of rooms being our biggest concern. From the very beginning, staff has wanted a 9,000+ sq. ft. building with 5 equivalent classrooms, which our LLHOA feels is too many for a Neighborhood Park and it now is still being pushed with 5 equivalent classrooms. Nothing has changed. Staff will say that they reduced the building size, but they accomplished that by eliminating the enclosed hallways and lobby to create a wide open floor plan that is very difficult to secure, but there are still 5 classrooms. It does not make sense to rehash all of the past proposals and counter proposals and it now boils down to what is being presented byJohnson Favaro. After all of our recent meetings and discussions we 1 c;?. have not resolved any of our most pressing issues. An agreement to building location and a 59 space parking lot is about all that has been agreed upon and staff is at the point of drawing up construction blueprints based on no input from us residents. Everything such as the building fishbowl design, a 275 ' long building with a large roof overhang, a barely used Discovery Room, restroom design with trough wash basins, 1 1/2 basketball courts, security measures, fencing, a current traffic study, noise abatement, vegetation selection, landscaping, steel shutters on all windows and doors, views etc .. will be decided by staff as they please. We are also concerned about excessive noise, traffic and parking as well, which has barely been discussed. We have submitted to you and staff our version of a building plan that is practical and makes sense and allows for a more secure building. Just a fence around the perimeter will not solve the security problems. Our plan has 3 classrooms, an enclosed lobby with display cases for artifacts, an office, a normal bathroom with a single entry exterior door, no shower stall, only 1 basketball court and enclosed for security with a more reasonable price tag. As I said, staff completely ignores us. I guess they know what is best for us and don't care what we think. Obviously, we talked to staff and the architects on numerous occasions, and they theoretically heard our words and our pleas, however they did not listen and accept any of our major issue suggestions. They have a pre-conceived plan that is still in place no matter what. A better way to describe it is in a private meeting we had with Cory, Matt, the 2 architects and 4 members of our LLHOA/ Park Committee ( myself, Herb Stark, Don Bell and Don Latterman). At the end of an hour long meeting, Don Bell asked the architects a simple question: "Has anything we said changed your minds?". Jim Favaro, one of the architects, without hesitation, emphatically answered NO. That tells you what we residents face at every turn. We are at wits end on how to have staff implement any of our major concerns and ideas even though you, the City Council has instructed them otherwise. 2 Our advice is to stop the process now, tell the staff to follow your explicit instructions and make sure that they listen and follow your instructions, otherwise we will have a $10,000,000 or more project on our hands that will create problems. But i'm sure the RFP will continue on just they way staff originally planned it and the City will spend $10,000,000 or more on this project and we, the residents of Ladera Linda will be faced with the many problems that we tried to resolve for almost 4 years: a) park building and size, b) traffic, c) noise and d) parking. 3 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:28PM Enyssa Momoli; Nathan Zweizig FW: Comments on Johnson Favaro Summary of 7/10/19 Ladera Linda Meeting From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:01 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esa ssoo n@ rpvca .gov> Cc: Don Bell <DBell90275@aol.com>; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; Herb Stark <Stearman@palosverdes.com>; Jessica Vlaco <vlacoS@cox.net> <vlacoS@cox.net>; Marty Foster <martycrna@gmail.com>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Don Latterman <lattermand@gmail.com> Subject: Comments on Johnson Favaro Summary of 7/10/19 Ladera Linda Meeting I take issue with staffs summary as well as the Johnson Favaro memorandum summary of the Ladera Linda public meeting of July 10, 2019. After reading the Johnson Favaro memorandum I was quite surprised at the inaccuracies contained therein. His summary of the attendees that signed in (under paragraph ll. Attendance B) did not match the demographics of those who attended. We asked Cory for a copy of the signed lists for this public meeting and his response was that it was a privacy issue and we could not receive a copy. We then asked for a name redacted copy and got the same answer. Jessica Vlaco contacted Cory and he finally sent a prepared Excel sheet showing the street name and City location for 76 attendees. He also said that 7 attendees did not mark down addresses or that the writing was illegible. Based on the 76 legible signers with 7 4 from RPV, I calculated the percentage of attendees for each of the 4 adjacent HOA groups and other RPV residents and they turned out to be a lot different than that shown by Johnson Favaro in their Summary. Analyzing the Excel list of 7 4 RPV residents I found: Johnson LLHOA Favaro Ladera Linda -----------45 61% 38% Sea View ----------------19 26% 14% Mediterranea -----------1 1% 2% ~' 1 Seacliff -------------------1 Other RPV residents --8 TOTAL 74 1% 11% 100% 0% 46% 100% I don't know how Johnson Favaro calculated their percentages, but they do not reflect reality. Something is wrong here. The 6 break out groups all said that the park building was too big and had too many rooms. Another issue in the Johnson Favaro Summary on page 2, is their responses in (under paragraph lll. Summary A , B and C). They completely ignored what was said at each breakout group summary. This is frightening. Every one of the groups stated that they felt that there were too many rooms and that there should be less than 5 rooms. Most said 4 rooms and some said 3 rooms. Their comment for paragraph lll. A: "A plurality of the workshop attendees approved the following", completely ignored the fact that all of the breakout groups approved less rooms. Their comment for paragraph lll. B: "A plurality of the workshop attendees expressed the following concern/question to be addressed in the subsequent design phase", also completely ignored other comments made by the breakout groups groups made such as traffic, parking, noise and view . Issues. Their comment for paragraph lll. C: "Their was no clear consensus and a wide spectrum of opinion and very divergent views were expressed regarding the following": also did not reflect what was actually summarized by the breakout groups. The groups all agreed that 5 rooms was too many and all said that 4 was a better number and some even said that 3 would be acceptable. Because staff or the architect did not ask a simple question, a member of our HOA Board, Sylvia, did ask the question at the end of the meeting:"How many of you want less than 5 rooms in the park, raise your hands?". over 95% of the people did. She then asked, "How many of you would like 4 rooms in the new park?" Again over 95% raised their hands. But I guess that was not scientific enough. I hope that 4 City Council members who attended the meeting did listen to what the breakout groups actually recommended. It was completely different than the Johnson Favaro summary. We hope you put a stop to this distorting of the facts. 2 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11 :OS AM Enyssa Memoli; Nathan Zweizig FW: Ladera Linda construction From: yaelony <y.aelony@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:03 AM To: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda construction To: RPV City Council As a member of the Ladera Linda HOA board, I strongly support tonight's comments to be made by my fellow board members & Mickey Rodich, to which I am already privy. Sincerely, Yossef Aelony, M.D., F.A.C.P., F.C.C.P. Clinical Professor of Medicine, emeritus, Div of Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine & Physiology, Harbor-UCLA The TB Clinician for the city of Long Beach City of Long Beach Health Department, 2525 Grand Ave. Long Beach, CA 90815, suite 167. 562-570-4235 TB Clinician, LA County (South, Curtis Tucker) Coalition to eliminate TB in California SCPMG, ret. Board of Directors of Breathe Los Angeles Reviewer Chest, Respiration, Respirology, Lancet, Medical Letter, Annals of Thoracic Surgery Lecturer, L' Association Franco-Vietnamienne de Pneumologie & Project VietNam email: y.aelony@cox.net tel; cell 310 508 5452 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:56 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Memoli FW: Ladera Linda Neighborhood Park From: jack fleming <jjfleming2000@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:54 AM To: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Neighborhood Park Hello, I opppose any changes to the neighborhood park in Ladera Linda. The current buildings can be renovated and the footprint should not be changed. The council use to talk about less is more but that has changed. The amount of money being spent on this project is stagering, this money should be saved and spent on infrastructure projects in the City such as the slide area. The plan being presented now does not consider that the park is in a neighborhood and not accessed from a throughfare. The current facilities in other areas of the hill are under utilized so there is no justification to spend the amount proposed on a project of this magnitude. This is a complete waste oftaxpayor money and city employee time. Thank you, Jack Fleming REAL TOR and CPA 310-748-5206 License # 01946212 RE/MAX Estate Properties 1 d. From: Sent: To: Subject: LC -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:24AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli FW: LL park From: martha foster <martycrna@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 8:51AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: LL park Thank you again for all the time and talent devoted to our little park nestled between two neighborhoods. The 7/10 meeting showed that many liked much of what they saw in the current plan. The breakout groups ... which was a great democratic exercise ... did show from every group the desire for one less classroom, one less meeting room and in general a smaller footprint. That fact may have been misrepresented in some reports but I do have copies of each groups report. Please consider carefully (and I know you will) the potential adverse effects of a destination park with activities that may not appeal to RPV residents but will bring many others to our streets, where our children play and where we all need a safe environment. Thanks for all you do. Marty Foster LLHOA resident Sent from my iPad 1 ~. From: Sent: To: Subject: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com> Tuesday, August 20, 2019 3:18 PM CC; CityCierk Ladera Linda Redevelopment I received this e-mail from Amanda Wong. She and Jessica Vlaco will be most impacted by your decisions that you make tonight. I suggest that you take into consideration of what she says. Dear City Council Members, I wish I could be here in person tonight so I could look you in the eye and tell you how disheartened I am with the whole Ladera Linda planning process. From the very beginning the LLHOA has been actively involved, not because we oppose change, but because we hoped to have meaningful input into creating a design that would meet the needs of all stakeholders who use the community center, while at the same time addressing our very serious and legitimate concerns about safety, security, traffic and noise. Instead, it feels like the city and the architects have only paid lip service to our suggestions and ignored us. Others will address the specifics of the architectural plans, but my family's primary concern is that the city is building something bigger than necessary, with the intent and goal of increasing programming and use at the park. Ladera Linda is a neighborhood park. It is situated in a residential area directly across the road from where young children --mine and my neighbors -are learning to ride bikes (because, ironically bike riding is not allowed in the park.). We already deal with speeding cars and heavy traffic for the nature preserve and A YSO. The neighborhood cannot tolerate more traffic. Moreover the hikers and dog walkers now park daily -at all hours -on Pirate & Searaven right outside our houses. This is not just a pet peeve, this is a real security issue for my family. Just a few months ago I was cooking dinner in my kitchen. It was warm so my garage door was open and the interior garage door connected to the kitchen was open to circulate the air. I heard a rustling sound in the garage and alerted my husband -he ran to the front door and confronted a stranger who mumbled "sorry I was just urn; .. looking for some motor oil" IN MY GARAGE and just a few feet from where my daughters and I were in the house. The man got into a vehicle that was parked in front of my house and thankfully drove away. He came back the following week and parked across the road on Pirate-right in front of the "No Preserve Parking" sign and asked if he could park on Pirate while he hiked. When I pointed out the sign he moved his car to Searaven in front of Jessica's house, and I was without recourse. I tell this story to hopefully illustrate to you why we are so concerned about anything that will attract more people to our neighborhood. Ask yourself honestly, what if this had happened at your home, to your spouse and children? Would you be so dismissive of our security concerns if a suspicious stranger had been rummaging in YOUR garage with access to YOUR children, then returned the following weekend? I understand it's prestigious and exciting to be involved in managing a huge budget and developing a fantastic new community center, and I understand that you represent the entire city, but being a city council member also requires you to ensure fair treatment for the residents of Ladera Linda and ensuring that we do not bear a disproportionate share of the negative consequences (safety, security, traffic 1 and noise) resulting from your decisions. c9. There are many stakeholders who have needs/wants they hope this new building will serve, but there are only two groups Ladera Linda, and to a lesser extent Seaview who will be NEGATIVELY impacted by your decision. I pray that you please give meaningful consideration to the alternative building plan forwarded by the LLHOA which would serve the programming and docent needs, as well as satisfy the very real concerns of the Ladera Linda community. Amanda Wong Ladera Linda Homeowner 2 From: Sent: Herb Stark < pt17stearman@gmail.com > Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:27 PM To: CC; CityCierk Subject: Fwd: Ladera Linda Community Center ...... Alice Gunderson asked me to sent this to you as for some reason it was being rejected when she tried to send it to the city. Herb ----------Forwarded message--------- From: Alice Gunderson <ag 634@usc.edu> Date: Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 4:10PM Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center ...... Dear Ms. Colborn, As residents of Ladera Linda, we would like to have the City Council be aware of our general views on the development and re-designing of the Ladera Linda Community Center as we will not be able to attend this evening's Council meeting ..... When this project initially started, we understood it would be a Center where individuals and families in surrounding RPV areas could enjoy the area which we all chose to live in. We saw it as a "community center", not a commercial money making center. Not a duplication or competition to other centers in RPV as well as PV and Rolling Hills. Not an adjunct to the park system. Many of us moved to the back side of 'The Hill' for it's quiet charm ...... a place to "come home to after a busy day at work". We can only begin to think what the corner or Forrestal and PV South will be if we go with a Master Plan with all the bells and whistles currently on the drawing board. Let's keep and make this a Community Center. A place where young families can take their family for a picnic, where retirees can walk and exercise with friends and family and where the "sandwiched generation" can send grandparents and their children to the Community Center while they try to get a couple of winks of R&R. Let's truly make this a Community Center ..... not another destination wedding venue, we have Trump's and Terranea!!!! Thank you for listening ..... Jane Sasaki Elaine Knipe Alice Gunderson (aka 3 AARP Sisters at 3737 Vigilance Drive) 1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK DATE: AUGUST 19, 2019 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, August 20, 2019 City Council meeting: Item No. F G H Description of Material Email from Sunshine Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Barnes and Janet Gunter; Email from April Sandell Email from Sunshine (See Item F) Attachment A (Agreement with Ardurra Group, Inc.) J Email exchange between Finance Director Cullen and Bob Nelson L Email from Sunshine (See Item F) M Email from Sunshine (See Item F) 2 Email exchange between City Manager Willmore and Herb Stark; Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Waters and Herb Stark; Emails from: Sunshine (See Item F); Herb Stark (Ladera Linda HOA Committee); Ginette Aelony; Donald Bell; Bill Schurmer; Sharon Schurmer; Charles Agnew; Gary Randall; Herb Stark; Jennifer Bulatao; Sandra Valeri; Paul and Irene Henrikson; Pam Andresen; Craig and Gilda Whited; Gustavo Valero; Patricia Stenehjem; Gene and Lynne Dewey; Steven Carlsen; Colleen Moon; Barry Hildebrand; Jim Hevener; Jonathan Haskell Respectfully submitted, L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\20190820 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx From: Sent: To: Teresa Takaoka Monday, August 19, 2019 9:56 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Memoli Subject: FW: August 20, 2019 Council Agenda in pieces. Not good. LC From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 3:41 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; imac <imac@rpvca.gov>; EPC <EPC@rpvca.gov>; TSC <TSC@rpvca.gov>; cprotem73@cox.net; Dave Emenhiser <emenhiser@aol.com> <emenhiser@aol.com>; CCAC <CCAC@rpvca.gov>; info@pvpwatch.com; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>; hvybags@cox.net Subject: August 20, 2019 Council Agenda in pieces. Not good. Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council, Once again, your Agenda is divided into small projects and therefore, you do not have the opportunity to discuss issues which are not being coordinated. You have four Consent Calendar Items and one Regular Business Item which are all lacking implementation of the General Plan Goal of providing a roadways and trails network. These Items all relate, specifically, to the lack of maintenance and enhancement of roadside, unpaved pathways. The Public Works Department and the Rec.& Parks Department have been allowed to forget that the Trails Network Plan (TNP) exists. There is no consideration given to trail connections as a part of other in-house instigated projects. My suggestion in relation to the TNP update is that the TNP trail "narratives" be converted to the same subdivisions of the City as is currently used by the Public Works Department. Consent Calendar Items F, H and M reference Areas 1, 3, 4 and 8.of the Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project. Various Staff Reports have mentioned Road Districts. The term "areas" is also used for sidewalk repairs and there is also the term "Grinding Zones". I was provided a map of the whole City called the Encroachment Permit Map which divides the City into nine, un-named sub-sections. Staff's response to my suggestion has been silence other the Gabriella Yap's comment that the quality of the Encroachment Permit Map is "LOL", the City now has a quality GIS data base and that she would talk 1 F; li,L,M, ~ with Elias Sassoon about it. The quality of the area maps in the Agenda Item's F, Hand M Agenda Reports indicate no progress is being made to welcome our Public Works Department into the 21st Century. In the mean-time, our roadside trail amenities are deteriorating to the point of being unsafe or non-existent in many places. I did read that Ara Mihranian was going to be invited to comment on the design program for the latest section of the PVDE Roadway Safety Project. More silence. It is too late for Item F I Area 8 (which is substantially in an Equestrian Overlay District). The CaiWater Pipeline Project opportunity is slipping away. There may still be hope for Items H, M, Land 2. (Not in the Budget is no excuse.) For now, it all depends on what Council inserts into the Motion on each Item and how Doug Willmore "interprets" your direction. I am still suggesting that these errors and omissions would be avoided if the City seated an Infrastructure and Activities Commission to review the completeness of each projects Design Program. (The draft NCCP could use such a review, too.) Thank you for anything you can do to stop this plethora of little train wrecks .... SUNSHINE 2 From: Sent: To: Megan Barnes Monday, August 19, 2019 10:54 AM CityCierk Subject: FW: Letter to Rep. Barragan re: Rancho LPG issue and its high risk to the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula Item G. Megan Barnes Senior Administrative Analyst City Manager's Office City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5226 mba rnes@ rpvca .gov From: Janet Gunter <arrianeS@aol.com> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 10:27 AM To: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov> Cc: Francisco.Carrillo@mail.house.gov; joey.apodaca@mail.house.gov; marc.cevasco@mail.house.gov; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; det310@juno.com; carriescoville@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Letter to Rep. Barragan re: Rancho LPG issue and its high risk to the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula Thank you, Megan. Don't get us wrong here ... we truly do respect the fact that the RPV Council is promoting the concept of action on the issue. We do appreciate you and RPV staffs efforts in reaching out to Congresswoman Barragan and any others on this debacle. We have been actively engaged in trying to get Rep. Barragan's office back in the ring for several months now by either re-introducing her bill with changes ... or introducing another one ... and have been hitting a brick wall. We believe that one of the reasons for this is the resistance of Rep. Lieu to support whatever bill is developed by Rep. Barragan. Without the support of Mr. Lieu ... on an issue that is "within his own district" ... the bill is doomed to failure. That would be a meaningless effort by Rep. Barrangan's office and a sheer waste of time for her staff. So, on that level we understand why we might be getting no response from her office. But, doing "nothing" is not a responsible answer from our Congresswoman either. Those of us in her abutting district to this site will be immediately and severely impacted from a catastrophic event at Rancho LPG as well. We hope that the RPV Council will consider communicating their concerns to your Congressional representative, Ted Lieu. Again, without his support there is very little chance of any legislative bill to address this dire issue ever being passed. Warm regards, Janet -----Original Message----- From: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov> To: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Francisco. Carrillo@mail. house.gov <Francisco. Carrillo@mail. house.gov>; joey.apodaca@mail. house.gov <joey.apodaca@mail.house.gov>; marc.cevasco@mail.house.gov <marc.cevasco@mail.house.gov>; det310@juno.com <det31 O@juno.com>; noelweiss@ca.rr.com <noelweiss@ca.rr.com> Sent: Mon, Aug 19, 2019 9:47am Subject: RE: Letter to Rep. Barragan re: Rancho LPG issue and its high risk to the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula Thank you for your comments, Janet, they will be included in late correspondence for Tuesday's council meeting. Yes, the Safe LPG Storage Act of 2018 did not advance in the last Congress. That is why staff contacted Rep. Barragan's office about whether she plans to re-introduce the bill in the 116th Congress. Rep. Barragan's office indicated it is still working on the issue of relocation, but has not said whether the bill will be re-introduced. 1 G. Thank you, Megan Barnes Senior Administrative Analyst City Manager's Office City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 31 0-544-5226 mbarnes@rpvca.gov From: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 4:09 PM To: Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov> Cc: Francisco.Carrillo@mail.house.gov; joey.apodaca@mail.house.gov; marc.cevasco@mail.house.gov; det31 O@juno.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com Subject: Letter to Rep. Barragan re: Rancho LPG issue and its high risk to the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula https://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=1287&meta id=7331 0 Dear Councilmembers, Our homeowners have just now read your Council's proposed letter to Rep. Barragan regarding the potential for destruction to residents from Rancho's massive liquefied petroleum gas storage facility and its operation sitting within the earthquake rupture zone of the Palos Verdes fault. We are heartened by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council's current expressed concerns for public safety related to this Plains All American Pipeline operated Rancho LPG LLC business operation. However, the RPV Staff report is, unfortunately, wrong. Rep. Barragan's bill re: LPG facilities died with the last Congress and she has introduced no other legislative bill. The other significant obstacle that we note related to congressional action, is that it appears that your own congressional rep., Ted Lieu,(in whose district this facility lies) is not supporting any action on this issue, whatsoever. For years now Rep. Lieu has been AWOL on this highly hazardous situation. The question becomes "why"? We urge you to use your influence in attempting to get these representatives to work "together" in creating a rational and responsible Bill that will address this most obvious problem before the constituents in the LA Harbor and Palos Verdes areas are sifting remains out of ashes from the eventual catastrophic event. Your report references multiple times the lackluster efforts by previous public officials, including the City of Los Angeles, to address this issue. They all have "denied" any real authority to address the situation and whine about their limitations. This is categorically untrue!. ALL of these public officials and agencies COULD intervene on this issue if the sheer political will were present. It is a complete travesty that all are choosing to wait for the catastrophe to evolve rather than take assertive action to "prevent" it! All in the good (?) name of politics. 2 A critical element that is ripe for "immediate" federal intervention is the "public trust land" being used currently by this private Plains facility for the rail line servicing the site. This issue could immediately be addressed by the feds as it relates to proper contracts and a proper risk assessment reflecting concern for public safety and generating revenue from the rail operation commensurate with the potential liability posed by their rail transportation. The current situation, as we know it, generates a paltry (approximately) $1400/mo for the use of a rail spur and provides a million dollars worth of liability insurance. Bear in mind that a single 30,000 gallon rail care of propane has a blast radius of .58 mile. There are homes, schools, shopping centers, busy traffic corridors, and most importantly ... other LPG railcars, two 12.5 million gallon butane tanks, an abutting refinery with multiple flammables and explosives, marine oil terminals and a hornets nest of hazardous pipelines falling within that .58 mile blast radius of the rail spur. The notion that a $1 million liability policy would be worth a tinkers damn .... is pure hallucination. We also wish to stress that the City and Port of Los Angeles have the lions share of control over this issue. There is no question that they could immediately intervene on this issue as a matter of "local public safety". The legislative angle with Congress, while it has value, will be much more lengthy in its process, and is dwarfed by the City of LA's ability to immediately address this "if they want to." Remember, the City I Port of LA has a monthly, revocable "roll over" rail permit that renews EVERY MONTH! They also have jurisdiction over the pipeline that transports the excess butane gas from distant refineries to the Rancho facility. Either of these uses could be revoked rendering the Rancho facility and its antiquated tanks "defunct". The State of California and the California State Lands Commission also have great ability to intervene on this issue. The public trust land being used by the LPG facility is under the direct control of the City and Port of LA. .. but, are under the "oversight" of the State Lands Commission. These particular properties are to be used for the "benefit" of the people of our State and for the promotion of ocean going commerce. This facility is no longer a port tenant (since 2004) and has no shipping wharf at the Port. We contend that the use of this land to benefit a "private" business with no direct connection to the port is a safety "burden" that outweighs any possible benefit to "the people". We believe that the allowance of the port and city to use public trust lands to accommodate the Plains/Rancho LPG facility is improper, and that the State Lands Commission's willingness to ignore this mismanagement, regardless of its jeopardy, is a "breach" of the public trust. The State Lands Commission's next meeting is August 23, at the Sheraton Gateway Hotel in Los Angeles. It would benefit your Rancho Palos Verdes residents to represent their safety interests on this issue at that meeting. We sincerely hope that you will consider sending a council member. This situation should be recognized for it's gravity and its deadly potential. Until that happens, until our community "officials" elevate this extraordinary risk, the good and unwitting residents of our communities remain in the cross hairs of certain disaster. We urge your RPV Council's continued involvement in this issue and prompt you to engage the City of LA in discussions that will evoke action. We have no idea how soon the "big one" will hit. But, it will. Time is of the essence. Many thanks, Janet Gunter Member: San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, INC. 3 From: Sent: To: Teresa Takaoka Monday, August 19, 2019 9:34AM Enyssa Memoli; Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: Letter to Rep. Barragan re: Rancho LPG issue and its high risk to the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula Late corr From: April Sandell <hvybags@cox.net> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 8:36AM To: Glenn Cornell <gcornell6@gmail.com>; Maria T Denue <mtd4homes@aol.com>; Elizabeth Hoffman <Eiizabeth.Hoffman@csulb.edu>; rwagoner@me.com Cc: Janet Gunter <arrianeS@aol.com>; peninsulaverde@cox.net; sharon loveys <sharon.loveys@yahoo.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; jgualeni@sbcglobal.net; John Cruikshank <jcruikshank@jmc-2.com> <jcruikshank@jmc-2.com>; eric@ericalegria.com; Dave Emenhiser <emenhiser@aol.com> <emenhiser@aol.com>; Ken Delong <ken.delong@verizon.net>; Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Letter to Rep. Barragan re: Rancho LPG issue and its high risk to the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula Dear RHRHOA board directors, Re: City Council's upcoming Tues. Agenda Item I Why this matters to Rolling Hills Rivera HOA and others. Please consider printing Janet's letter in the next newsletter or otherwise via a mass email NOTICE to the property owners. Thank you for your consideration. April Sandell Begin forwarded message: From: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com> Subject: Letter to Rep. Barragan re: Rancho LPG issue and its high risk to the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula Date: August 18, 2019 at 4:08:45 PM PDT To: jerrv.duhovic@rpvca.gov, ken.dyda@rpvca.gov, eric.alegria@rpvca.gov, susan.brooks@rpvca.gov, john.cruikshank@rpvca.gov, mbarnes@rpvca.gov Cc: Francisco.Carrillo@mail.house.gov, joey.apodaca@mail.house.gov, marc.cevasco@mail.house.gov, det31 O@juno.com, noelweiss@ca.rr.com https://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=5&event id= 1287&meta id=7331 0 Dear Councilmembers, Our homeowners have just now read your Council's proposed letter to Rep. Barragan regarding the potential for destruction to residents from Rancho's massive liquefied petroleum gas storage facility and its operation sitting within the earthquake rupture zone of the Palos Verdes fault. We are heartened by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council's current expressed concerns for public safety related to this Plains All American Pipeline operated Rancho LPG LLC business operation. However, the RPV Staff report is, unfortunately, wrong. Rep. Barragan's bill re: LPG facilities died with the last Congress and she has introduced no other legislative bill. 1 The other significant obstacle that we note related to congressional action, is that it appears that your own congressional rep., Ted Lieu,(in whose district this facility lies) is not supporting any action on this issue, whatsoever. For years now Rep. Lieu has been AWOL on this highly hazardous situation. The question becomes "why"? We urge you to use your influence in attempting to get these representatives to work "together" in creating a rational and responsible Bill that will address this most obvious problem before the constituents in the LA Harbor and Palos Verdes areas are sifting remains out of ashes from the eventual catastrophic event. Your report references multiple times the lackluster efforts by previous public officials, including the City of Los Angeles, to address this issue. They all have "denied" any real authority to address the situation and whine about their limitations. This is categorically untrue!. ALL of these public officials and agencies COULD intervene on this issue if the sheer political will were present. It is a complete travesty that all are choosing to wait for the catastrophe to evolve rather than take assertive action to "prevent" it! All in the good (?) name of politics. A critical element that is ripe for "immediate" federal intervention is the "public trust land" being used currently by this private Plains facility for the rail line servicing the site. This issue could immediately be addressed by the feds as it relates to proper contracts and a proper risk assessment reflecting concern for public safety and generating revenue from the rail operation commensurate with the potential liability posed by their rail transportation. The current situation, as we know it, generates a paltry (approximately) $1400/mo for the use of a rail spur and provides a million dollars worth of liability insurance. Bear in mind that a single 30,000 gallon rail care of propane has a blast radius of .58 mile. There are homes, schools, shopping centers, busy traffic corridors, and most importantly ... other LPG railcars, two 12.5 million gallon butane tanks, an abutting refinery with multiple flammables and explosives, marine oil terminals and a hornets nest of hazardous pipelines falling within that .58 mile blast radius of the rail spur. The notion that a $1 million liability policy would be worth a tinkers damn .... is pure hallucination. We also wish to stress that the City and Port of Los Angeles have the lions share of control over this issue. There is no question that they could immediately intervene on this issue as a matter of "local public safety". The legislative angle with Congress, while it has value, will be much more lengthy in its process, and is dwarfed by the City of LA's ability to immediately address this "if they want to." Remember, the City I Port of LA has a monthly, revocable "roll over" rail permit that renews EVERY MONTH! They also have jurisdiction over the pipeline that transports the excess butane gas from distant refineries to the Rancho facility. Either of these uses could be revoked rendering the Rancho facility and its antiquated tanks "defunct". The State of California and the California State Lands Commission also have great ability to intervene on this issue. The public trust land being used by the LPG facility is under the direct control of the City and Port of LA ... but, are under the "oversight" of the State Lands Commission. These particular properties are to be used for the "benefit" of the people of our State and for the promotion of ocean going commerce. This facility is no longer a port tenant (since 2004) and has no shipping wharf at the Port. We contend that the use of this land to benefit a "private" business with no direct connection to the port is a safety "burden" that outweighs any possible benefit to "the people". We believe that the allowance of the port and city to use public trust lands to accommodate the Plains/Rancho LPG facility is improper, and that the State Lands Commission's willingness to ignore this mismanagement, regardless of its jeopardy, is a "breach" of the public trust. The State Lands Commission's next meeting is August 23, at the Sheraton Gateway Hotel in Los Angeles. It would benefit your Rancho Palos Verdes residents to represent their safety interests on this issue at that meeting. We sincerely hope that you will consider sending a council member. This situation should be recognized for it's gravity and its deadly potential. Until that happens, until our community "officials" elevate this extraordinary risk, the good and unwitting residents of our communities remain in the cross hairs of certain disaster. We urge your RPV Council's continued involvement in this issue and prompt you to engage the City of LA in discussions that will evoke action. We have no idea how soon the "big one" will hit. But, it will. Time is of the essence. Many thanks, 2 Janet Gunter Member: San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, INC. 3 CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT By and Between CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES and ARDURRA GROUP, INC. dba ANDERSONPENNA PARTNERS I. 01203.0006/571046.4 AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND ARDURRA GROUP, INC. THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (herein "Agreement") is made and entered into this 61h day of August, 2019 by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a California municipal corporation ("City") and ARDURRA GROUP, a Florida corporation, dba AndersonPenna Partners, Inc. ("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 l 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 standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work under similar circumstances. 01203.0006/571046.4 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. Consultant shall post job site notices, as prescribed by regulation. (b) Prevailing Wages. Consultant 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, Consultant acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) determination of the prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Consultant 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. Consultant 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 Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar 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 Consultant or by any subcontractor. 01203.0006/571046.4 2 (d) Payroll Records. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Consultant and each subconsultant 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. Consultant 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. Consultant shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Consultant 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, Consultant and each of its subconsultants shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement. (f) Eight-Hour Work Day. Consultant acknowledges that eight (8) hours labor constitutes a legal day's work. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810. (g) Penalties for Excess Hours. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. The Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Consultant 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 Consultant 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 (lY2) 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, Consultant 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." Consultant's Authorized Initials ___ _ (i) Consultant's Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor who will perform work under this Agreement, Consultant shall be responsible for such 01203.0006/571046.4 3 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. Consultant 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. Consultant 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. 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. 01203.0006/571046.4 4 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 Consultants. 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 $76,309 (Seventy Six Thousand Three Hundred Nine Dollars) (the "Contract Sum"), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1.9. 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. 01203.0006/571046.4 5 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 contain all information specified in Exhibit "C", and shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and sub- contractor contracts. Sub-contractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person. City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7 .3, City will use its best efforts to cause Consultant to be paid within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Consultant's correct and undisputed invoice; however, Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run procedures, the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City to Consultant for correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice provided by the Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided herein or any applicable law. 2.5 Waiver. Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant. ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE 3.1 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. 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 01203.0006/571046.4 6 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 ( 1 0) 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 beyond June 30, 2020, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit "D"). The City may, in its sole discretion, extend the Term for one additional one-year term(s). 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: Robert Merrell, PE Sr. Project Manager Stephen G. Badum, PE Group Leader, Engineering and Municipal Services 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 01203.0006/571046.4 7 every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant's staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant's staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any such performance. 4.2 Status of Consultant. Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers, employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant's officers, employees or agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may otherwise accrue to City's employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may have to any such rights. 4.3 Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall be Ron Dragoo, City 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. 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 01203.0006/571046.4 8 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 0 1, 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- 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. 01203.0006/571046.4 9 (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, 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. 01203.0006/571046.4 10 (g) Enforcement of contract provlSlons (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 ( 1 0) 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. (1) 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. 01203.0006/571046.4 11 (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) 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. 01203.0006/571046.4 12 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 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. 01203.0006/571046.4 13 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 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 01203.0006/571046.4 14 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. 7.3 Retention of Funds. Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant (whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses·, costs, liabilities, or damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by reason of Consultant's acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant's obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein. 01203.0006/571046.4 15 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 this Agreement, the Consultant and its sureties shall be liable for and shall pay to the City the sum of $350 (Three Hundred And Fifty Dollars) 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 01203.0006/571046.4 16 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. 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 01203.0006/571046.4 17 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. 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. 01203.0006/571046.4 18 9.2 Interpretation. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply. 9.3 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument. 9.4 Integration; Amendment. This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void. 9.5 Severability. In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless. 9.6 Warranty & Representation of Non-Collusion. No official, officer, or employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision 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 01203.0006/571046.4 19 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), ornission(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] 01203.0006/571046.4 20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first-above written. ATTEST: Emily Colborn, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP William W. Wynder, City Attorney CITY: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a municipal corporation Jerry V. Duhovic, Mayor CONSULTANT: ARDURRA GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, dba AndersonPenna Partners. B /ji-/?1' ~ ~~~, y:~~---------------------- By: Name: Catherine Cahill Title: ief Financial Office am : Lisa Penna Title: Vice President Address: 3737 Birch Street, Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 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 BUSlNESS ENTITY. 01203,0006/571046.4 21 ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE On ~yftl= l¢019 before me, Cristina Harper. personally appeared catrulil\((, CaVIill_,proved to me on the basts of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) ware subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/§!!.elthey executed the same in his/~r/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 ofthe State of Florida that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. -.... ..... I ~:&~-). CRISnNA R HA!iDEP t 1 .f~'6.•?. ~ Notary Public • State of F .oriCd t.l ~ . Commission I GG 254365 1 \~. My Comm. Expires Aug JO. 2C12 ' Bonded throuah National Notar) •'mr. WITNESS my hand ;nd offici!!~ 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 0 0 8 D D D D CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER TITLE(S) PARTNER(S) 0 LIMITED GENERAL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TRUSTEE(S) GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTHER·-------·------- SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: (NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)) 01203.0006/571046.4 DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT --~~:~~~~~~~~~~~--TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT ~=-:::::--"-···=-==-=:-:-:--::-:-::--:-:--::-::::::-:::---:-=-:::-:-: SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF~~ QrQ..ro,-.,.542.., On~~alt 19,2019 before me, H1 <!N \1 t ~.personally appeared L\:-p, 'fwnq, , proved to me on the bas s of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscnbed 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. ~--······-···~ , , MICHELLE COX ~ e. Notary PubUc • California : ~ .:. Oranp County ' ~ • Commiuion II 2285205 ~ . •. : My Comm. Ex~ire> Apr 1 J, 2023 ------·=== OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER D INDIVIDUAL 0 CORPORATE OFFICER D D D D D D TITLE(S) PARTNER(S) 0 LIMITED GENERAL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TRUSTEE(S) GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTHER ______________________ _ SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: (NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)) 01203.0006/571046.4 DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES I. Consultant will perform the following design services for the renovation of the Hesse Park parking lot (the Services): A. As-Built Research, Investigation and Review A thorough search of the available records will be conducted by Consultant to acquire relevant data to assist in the design of the project. Consultant will conduct a site reconnaissance to identify all pertinent elements that might have an impact on the project design. B. Field Survey A design topography survey will be completed in the area of the proposed retaining wall below Hawthorne Boulevard by subconsultant Kelsurveys, Inc. so that the improvement is properly located into the hillside and a base plan is established for the landscape modifications C. Geotechnical Investigation Borings will be made by subconsultant Associated Soils, Inc. at the retaining wall location and testing completed to provide design parameters for the structural design of the retaining wall. D. Preliminary Plans Consultant will compile the concept drawings provided by the City and the assembled topographic surveys into the base plan where individual design elements are developed to approximately 50% plans for review and concurrence from the City and other interested parties. The detailed location of the retaining wall, islands, striping and lighting will be included. The landscaping concepts will also be illustrated. E. Retaining Wall Structural Design The structural design for the retaining wall will be completed by subconsultant Arcon Structural Engineers, Inc. following receipt of any comments obtained from the preliminary plan review. The specific type of exposed wall surface will also be finalized at that time. The retaining wall plans and design calculations will be subject to review with the Building Department F. Lighting Design 01203.0006/571046.4 Subconsultant Mullen & Associates will finalize the location and type of lighting with photometric calculations to confirm the desired coverage, as director by the A-1 City's Contract Officer. This information will also be useful in determining the use and extent of path lighting with bollards. G. Landscape and Irrigation Design Once the geometry and island locations are set, the detailed landscaping and tree selection can be finalized both within the parking lot and above the retaining wall. Based on the preliminary plan review and comments received, the final plans will be prepared by subconsultant David Volz Design and incorporated by Consultant into a 90% submittal for a comprehensive review. This review will include a preliminary cost estimate by Consultant. H. Final Plans, Specifications, and Estimates Consultant will complete and submit a final Plans, Specs and Estimate package for final review by the City. All electronic files (AutoCAD, excel spreadsheets, word documents) will be delivered to the City and formatted for proper publishing for advertisement for construction bids. I. Assistance During the Bid Period and During Construction, including providing recommendations for answering Requests for Information and Requests for Change Orders. J. Meetings Consultant will participate in monthly meetings with City staff, as well as one community meeting prior to the City receiving construction bids. II. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible work products to the City: A. Detailed Contract Documents, including plans and specifications in electronic format (AutoCAD, excel spreadsheets and word documents, as well as .pdf files) for publishing for construction bids .. 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. Monthly status reports. IV. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be revised by the Consultant without additional charge to the City until found satisfactory and accepted by City. V. Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services: 01203.0006/571046.4 A-2 A. Robert Merrell, PE ...:. Senior Project Manager B. Kelvin Kitako, PLS -Kelsurveys, Inc. C. Larry Mullen, PE -Mullen & Associates, Inc. D. Hernan Montoya, SE-Arcon Structural Engineers, Inc. E. Ted Riddell, GE -Associated Soils, Inc. F. David Volz, LA-David Volz Design 01203.0006/571046.4 A-3 EXHIBIT "B" SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (Superseding Contract Boilerplate) I. Section 2.2, Method of Compensation, is hereby amended as follows: (Deleted text is indicated in stril"ethroegh and added text in bold italics). "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 (eb) the Contract Sum is not exceeded; or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation." II. Section 7.7, Liquidated Damages, is hereby deleted in its entirety. 01203.0006/571046.4 B-1 IH"g·•" EXHIBIT "C" SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION I. Consultant (including subconsultants) shall perform the Services at the following rates: PM TASK ($185) CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Hesse Community Park -Parking Lot Renovation FEE PROPOSAL ·APP.: l(oki!Nj)VJ;tm MuMen&Ais~c. :~~ f)Volt0el<l91! PE DEICADD WP APP ($171} ($127) ($75} ODC subtotal Ind. t0%¥11rl<up 1 Reseact1 and Recormaissanoe 4 4 $1,424 2 rwid Surwys 1 3 $566 $3.751 3 GeotechnicallrwestigatiOo 1 $185 $5,478 4 Preliminary Plans 4 10 24 $5,498 5 Retaining Wal! Design 1 32 9 $6,800 $15,664 6 Lighting Design 1 1 $356 $14,300 7 Landscape and lrriga~on Design 4 2 2 $1,336 $7,150 8 rmal Plans, Specffications and Es1imalll& 9 16 40 4 S100 $9,881 9 Meetings 8 $1,480 10 Assistanoe During Bid and Construction 4 4 8 $2,440 Period MANtiOUR TOTALS 37 69 '86 .. : 4 :. : ... . FEE. TOTAl.$ ... .$M45 $11,199 $10,912 $300 . . $100 $~,9$$ $3,751 .. < $14,300 m.tM $5,478 .•· $7,1$0 TOTAL FEE II. A retention of ten percent (10%) shall be held from each payment as a contract retention to be paid as part of the final payment upon satisfactory completion of services. NOT APPLICABLE. III. Within the budgeted amounts for each Task, and with the approval of the Contract Officer, funds may be shifted from one Task subbudget to another so long as the Contract Sum is not exceeded per Section 2.1, unless Additional Services are approved per Section 1.9. 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. ol203.oo06!57to46.4 C-1 TOTAL $1.424 $4.317 $5,663 $5,498 $22,464 $14,656 $8.486 $9.&li $1.480 $2,440 ••·$7M.09 .. $76,309 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 and subconsultants' billing rates for all personnel/tasks are attached as Exhibit C-1. 01203.0006/571046.4 C-2 EXHIBIT C-1 PERSONNEL/TASK RATES As-Built Research, Investigation, and Review (ASE Soils Engineering) ITEM RATE HOURS COST SUB- BUDGET 1. Field reconnaissance, mapping and exploration Project engineer/geologist $155 4 $620 Hand auger drilling crew (2 man crew) $165 8 $1,320 $1,940 2. Laboratory testing Laboratory technician $75 20 $1,200 $1,200 3. Analysis and report preparation Principal engineer/ geologist $175 1 $175 Project engineer/geologist $155 8 $1,240 Drafting $75 3 $225 Office services $200 $1,840 Total $4,980 (See next page for rate sheet) 01203.0006/571046.4 C-3 fNG1N£ERlNG & TECHNICAL ~RV!CES tBi!! !!tr Te!!l P~no'1lal Gl!!l1~chnica1 Engi!lfiiiGeolog$1. Prqetl Englneeti Geologist Staff Ensneer!GeolagiS1 SIJI)!If\'lsing Tetflooan (LabJFisldJ Field TecilniOall Field Tecllllitian (Prevailing WBgll) Field Support Senllm Off.C(!S~ C!uslll!:it!on & Index TIISbi Sand EQuhtalMI(Cal217 or ASTM 02419) A~ Umlt (LLWl par ASTM 04318-034) Sllrinkage Fadmi V\STM 0421) Sf!wa Atlafysl& lnclldmg HV4ro (ASTM 0422) S!Gva Atlalysls-r~ 200 rnas11 .10()W$$h Moisl\lre Cocltent (A$TM lm16) Moislllre COUll & Ory Oemity-Ring (!>2e37} f~!we Cootent Oly Oell6il)' -Shlllby T\lbe SpeciiiC Gravllt -SOli ~IW !litoc.!SI'-UU(1 point} Olll!Ct Sllear UIJ (3 points) Direct S!war CD (3 points) Unotmmed Corr\llr«<GiOO RuS:d<ml Sllear (3 Sheaf} Soil !Oh!!lll•~ !!J!s Slllfates Chlllrld$8 flll Re$1s11YJ1y C«!ooivity Su4e (So4. Cl, pll, ~it)') Dla!!l!!l!lfCQ!.WI 2' to 6" Diameter a· to 9' Diameter tioorly Charge Porta%-to·PorliliJStllndby fmle Winlmum Charrl ~i:enTU!J Co~Msion Test6"x12"' Cylindool inti Hc:i11 (ASTM C39) each Compression TosL 2''; 4" and 6" COWS (ASTM C42) each Morw CO!IIIl111$$ion GllM Compmsoo ~Pri$n\8 01203.0006/571046.4 $ 175.00 l>%'e lnspemOt {Orll!ediOllveniT ~ebacll) $ 1~MO Reg5tesed Deputy lrnipectOtiRegls1ered ICC lllllpec!Cr $ 135.00 ICC RegiSI!Ired ~Grading l!l!lpe®l $ 110.00 WibofliO'll)'l~hn!cian S 75.00 Technical Typist S '20.00 T~llllustra1or $ 10.00 F'~Asskiletll $ 70,00 ~pert W~ness (Pfel)tlratlon & Colill-4 ill. min) ~2n I !H!IIl!t T!JJ! $ 75.00 Ma~ Oel'lsity/Oj)l MO!SMe ASTM 01567 !Method A and B) $ 15600 Max Oellllity/Oj)t l~reASlM 01567tMethod C) s 100.00 Max Oe~IOpt Moisture Cal~orm 216 S 1SSOO R.Vefue Natural Soil (Cal301 Cl' ASTM 2844) s 95.00 R.Va!ue Cement orllme ~ated ~Cal 301 or ASTM 2844) s 55.00 RNelue Aggregate ~fll (Col301 or ASTM 2844) $ 25.00 CSR (ASTM 01883) ·Soil $ 40.00 CBR-!laiie s 40.00 ~-$ 131).00 Conl!OIIdati'Jll ASTM 02435 (~d Al Consatidalbn ASTM 02435 (Meiflod 6) $ 95.00 Tme Rite per lead lncremoot $ 185.00 Elpallllioo !ndn (2.5' Diemelllr Specimen) $ 215.00 Elpal)5ioo !ndaw. (4.0' Diametor Sp«imea) $ 265.00 S<ngf& l.ood Swell 01 ~ !«1! $ 245.00 Asl!lla!t Concre!! !!ISIS M~ DesgnbyMars!WiorSiabilomoo.u ~h!.lO s 75.00 Field 0\'nUy bt C~d Wx (Ca!300) s 75.00 'rl*:~ofCof!l~ tiiiX $ 75.00 Tl~tllcal MfJ.. Sp. Gta~ily & Oen$ily ol6illlffil'lOU$ M!lllures (A.STM 0 $ 95.00 20711 Ext~ of BitwT!eB Jhl! , % lli in miJ: (ASlM 02172, Ml!h A) $ r.'MO Maxlf111.1m f>el!slty Oeletmination (Cal 304, 2 pt. Avg J s 65.00 Sfablily Vallie (Cal366J· 3 Points Extmctioo of Situmen Material by lgnroon Mel!lod $ 6MO $ 100.00 ~C$Ym!lm $JJCOO O<Jrablllty al Ami~ [Cal229) Sliwe Ana~IS. Finti Otl!y (ASTM C136) $ 22.00 Sieve Ana~!$, Finm &Cwse {ASTM C136 or (Cal202) $ 1!0.00 Clea!l!lfi$ Valli(! CTM 227 $ 25.00 Sp Gravily. Fine aggregate Ind.% Absorption {ASTM C121l) $ 35.00 Sp. Gravity, CoaM Aggregate incl.% J\1)$\)T!lb\o~ (ASThtC1Z7) $ 110.00 ~ Resistan<Je.LA R8ltler. 100,500 rw. !ASTM C131} C-4 $ 115.00 $11500 $ 50.00 s 7~00 $ 7000 $ 75.00 $ 6500 s 400.00 t 170.00 s 180.00 $ 18000 s 26000 Ouol3 s 2$0.00 $ 320.00 $ 400.00 $ 190.00 $ 200.00 $ 40.00 $ 11S.OO $ 135.00 $ 12000 Qu.,"'e Ouele $ 35.00 $ 16500 $ l$5.00 $ 1\ISOO $ 2$0.00 $ 215.00 s 265.00 s 95.00 $ uooo s 140.00 s 140.00 $ 120 00 $220.00 Field Survey (Bob Merrell P.E.) Task LABOR TOTAL FEE #HRS RATE/HR l Research-City and County Survey Documents (Office) 0 130.00 $0.00 ~ Boundary Control Survey (Field) Center Line & RIW Locations 0 225.00 $0.0( 3 Horizontal and Vertical Control establishment. 2 225.00 $450.0( ~ Topographic Survey (Field) 12 225.00 $2,700.0( ; Survey Data Processing 2 130.00 $260.0< Total $3,410.0( Retaining Wall Design (Arcon Structural Engineers) TASKS 1 & 2: Structural Plans & Calculations: $9,850.00 TASK 3: Review Structural Specifications: $720.00 TASK 4: Coordination Meetings: .................................................. .. $ 1,080.00 TASK 5: Bidding Assistance & Construction Support .................. . $2,340.00 Total: $13,990.00 Reimbursables: $250.00 Rates for services outside the Scope of Services: Invoiced on time and materials basis, at the following hourly rates: Principal/Structural Engineer:$ 180.00 per hour Structural Engineer: $ 150.00 per hour Project Engineer: $ 140.00 per hour Design Engineer: $ 120.00 per hour Engineering Technician: $ 100.00 per hour CAD Designer/Drafter: $ 100.00 per hour Reimbursables CAD Plotting: $ 15.00 per vellum (or first bond plot) $ 30.00 per Mylar Large Format Prints: $ 3.00 each Photo Copies: $ 0.10 each Other Reimbursable Expenses: At cost 01203.0006/571046.4 C-5 Lighting Design (Mullen & Associates) Charged hourly up to a not-to-exceed amount of $13,000 Hourly rates for additional work: Electrical engineer $140 Project engineer $125 Senior design engineer $100 Designer $95 Draftsman $70 Clerical $50 On-site electrical engineer with PPE $200 Landscape Architecture Design (David Voltz Design) Design development Construction documents Final construction documents Total 01203.0006/571046.4 $4,000 $1,500 $1,000 $6,500 C-6 EXHIBIT "D" SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE I. Consultant shall perform all services timely in accordance with the following schedule: A. B. c. Surveys and Geotechnical Study Project layout and preparation of the 50% submittal Deliver 90% plans Deadline Date 4 Weeks following delivery of Notice to Proceed 3 weeks following completion of Task A. 3 weeks following completion of Task B II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the following dates. A. 50% Plans following completion of Task B. B. 90% Plans following completion of Task C. III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in accordance with Section 3.2. 01203.0006/57104{).4 D-1 From: Deborah Cullen Sent: To: Monday, August 19, 2019 4:20 PM Robert Nelson Cc: Subject: Emily Colborn; Teresa Takaoka; Nathan Zweizig; Doug Willmore RE: 8/20 Council 'Work Plans" -Thoughts Hi Bob, We will correct the TSC work plan. For the past few years, Ken Dyda and Jerry Duhovic have been the members of the PB Land Flow Subcommittee. The rest of the items will be included in late correspondence. Thank you, Viborctlll Culle-w V{¥ect:o-v ofF~ C(J;y of'Rc:wu:,ho-Pcilo-¥ Vev~ From: Robert Nelson <robert.nelson@rpvca.gov> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 3:09 PM To: Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov> Subject: 8/20 Councii'Work Plans" -Thoughts Deborah, Did a quick scan read. FAC: pg. Al: Assignment lOA: This covers the Civic Center (Council Goal 20a)-could we add Ladera Linda (Council goals 22-22c) and the Landslide (which has Council goal #39: Dec 31 milestone: 'draft funding plan for at least 50% of the PB Landslide feasibility plan for City Council consideration' ? TSC: pg. Cl: Specific Assignments: 15tsentence says its IMAC; could change to TSC. IMAC: pg. Dl: Statement: noted it includes 'the PVDS/Portuguese Bed landslide' which has Council goal #39 with a 12/31/19 milestone date as stated above in FAC. That could be tough for IMAC to complete it's work and meet that Council date since it makes sense the FAC probably should also opine on that funding. And, as with FAC, maybe Civic Center and Ladera Linda could be added for IMAC review. I MAC Dl: #5: What is the 'Land Flow Subcommittee?' Never heard of it. What is it's charter? I assume somehow plays with the PVDS Landslide. Interesting! Roles of Council Committees and Staff: El: Omits the 'Planning Commission' and might consider including. The Commission is unique: required by state law, has quasi-legal responsibility and has a Statement of Work (SOW) put 1 out by the Governor's office and Legislature. It's fine by me if we omit it because there is no question it exists with a role that has a definitive SOW. Just thoughts after a fast scan read. Keep up your great work on behalf of all 42,000 of us! Have a great weekend! Bob Nelson 2 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Monday, August 19, 2019 11:17 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Memoli Subject: FW: Ladera Linda Park Redevelopment LC From: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 11:01 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Ladera Linda Park Redevelopment FYI From: Doug Willmore Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 11:01 AM To: 'Herb Stark' <pt17stearman@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Park Redevelopment Herb, Just as an FYI: Richard Fisher (Contract) $181,900 Priority One Enviro Report $1,500 Johnson Favaro (to date) $126,567 Geo Tech/Land Survey (est) $69,000 Est. Total to date: $378,967 Remainder of JF contract: $411,893 Overall Total: $790,860 Of course, the remaining $411K for Johnson Favaro will be spent on preparing the detailed architectural drawings and plans for the type and size of building that the Council decides on. So, less than $400K has been spent to date, not $1.1M. When the final building is designed, the expenditure will be $800K for all the master plans and designs and plans. Doug From: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 10:36 AM To: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Ladera Linda Park Redevelopment $500,000 for Fisher 1 $600,000 for Johnson Favaro Herb On Mon, Aug 19,2019 at 10:11 AM Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Herb, What is the expenditure of $1.1M in reference to? Just trying to understand. Thanks, Doug From: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 10:17 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Park Redevelopment After three years of study and an expenditure of $1.1 millions what have we come up with? We have traded an over sized building with a dry creek bed and bridge for an over sized fishbowl with a grass roof. Herb Stark 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hi Teri- Matt Waters Monday, August 19,2019 10:12 AM Teresa Takaoka Nathan Zweizig FW: July 1Oth Public Medting-Sign in sheets 7.10.19 sent to Vlaco Attendance Streets and cities.pdf Late correspondence below for Ladera Linda 8-20-19 Item (with attachment). Thanks- Matt From: Matt Waters Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 10:04 AM To: stearman@juno.com Cc: laderalindahoa@cox.net; Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Jessica Vlaco <vlacoS@cox.net> <vlacoS@cox.net>; martycrna@gmail.com; dwbrpv@gmail.com; grapecon@cox.net; lattermand@gmail.com Subject: RE: July 10th Public Medting-Sign in sheets Hi Herb, Thanks for your email about the July 1oth LL workshop attendance list. Johnson Favaro's summary listed the following: 84 people signed in. 38°/o LL HOA 14% Seaview HOA 2°/o Mediterrania HOA 46°/o Other Residents These numbers were based on self-reporting by attendees on the attendance sheet. 46% of attendees did not indicate which HOA (if any) that they belonged to, and were marked as "other residents." Some attendees just wrote their name. Based on a review of the street names that I sent to Jessica, most of the "other residents", not surprisingly, are members of HOAs adjacent to Ladera Linda. I hope this addresses your concern. added as late correspondence. This email chain and the list of street addresses will be 1 (). Matt From: Matt Waters Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 4:26 PM To: stearman@juno.com Cc: laderalindahoa@cox.net; Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>; Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Jessica Vlaco <vlaco5@cox.net> <vlacoS@cox.net>; martycrna@gmail.com; dwbrpv@gmail.com; grapecon@cox.net; lattermand@gmail.com; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: July lOth Public Medting-Sign in sheets Hi Herb, I'll follow up on your email first thing Monday morning. If the breakdown of HOA attendance in Johnson Favaro's summary was off in any way, we'll send a correction to Council as part of late correspondence. Matt From: stearman@juno.com [mailto:stearman@juno.com] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 3:53 PM To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> Cc: laderalindahoa@cox.net; Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Jessica Vlaco <vlaco5@cox.net> <vlacoS@cox.net>; martycrna@gmail.com; dwbrpv@gmail.com; grapecon@cox.net; latterrnand@gmail.com Subject: RE: July lOth Public Medting-Sign in sheets This list does not match up with what was in their report. They said that 48% of the attendees were not from the four HOA's Herb 2 ladera linda 7.10.19 Wo rkshop Attendees St ree t list Street Name City 1 Admi rable Dr ; . "~ RPV 2 Admirab le Dr :' ., RPV i ~t 3 Admirab le Dr . RPV 4 Admirable Dr . . / ~ ~ ~ ; . RPV ... ~ •. • 5 Cliffsite Dr. RPV 6 Conqueror Dr RPV 7 Coolheights Dr RPV 8 Crest Rd RPV 9 Crest Rd RPV 10 Crest Rd RPV 11 Dauntless Dr RP V 12 Dauntless Dr RPV 13 Exultant Dr RPV 14 Exultant Dr RPV 15 Exultant Dr RP V 16 Exultant Dr RPV 17 Exultant Dr RPV 18 Exultant Dr RPV 19 Exultant Dr RPV 20 Gulfcrest Dr RPV 21 Heroic Dr RPV 22 Heroic Dr RPV 23 Marne Dr RPV 24 Nautilus Dr RPV 25 Palos Verdes Drive East RPV 26 Phantom Dr RPV 27 Phantom Dr RPV 28 Phantom Dr RPV 29 Phantom Dr RPV 30 Phantom Dr RPV 31 Phantom Dr RPV 32 Phantom Dr RPV 33 Phantom Dr RPV 34 Phantom Dr RPV 35 Phantom Dr RPV 36 Phantom Dr RPV 37 Phantom Dr RPV 38 Pirate Dr RPV 39 Pirate Dr RPV 40 Pirate Dr RPV 41 Rue De La Pierre RPV 42 Sea Raven Dr RPV 4 3 Sea Raven Dr RPV 44 Sea Raven Dr RPV 45 Sea Raven Dr RPV 46 Sea Raven Dr RP V 47 Sea Raven Dr RP V 48 Sea Ra ven Dr RPV 49 Sea Raven Dr RP V 50 Sea Ra ven Dr RPV 51 Sea Raven Dr RP V 5,2 Sea Ra ven Dr RPV 53 Sea Rav en Dr RPV 54 Sea Ra ve n Dr RPV 55 Sea Ra ven Dr RPV 56 Sea Raven Dr RPV 57 St alwart Dr RPV 58 Stalwart Dr RPV 59 stalwart Dr RPV 60 Stalw art Dr RPV 61 Valo r PI RPV 62 Valor PI RPV 63 Vigilan ce Dr RPV 64 Vigilance Dr RPV 65 Vigilance Dr RPV 66 Vigilance Dr RPV 67 Vigila nce Dr RPV 68 Vigilance Dr RPV 69 Vigilan ce Dr RPV 70 Vigilance Dr RPV 71 Vigilance Dr RPV 72 Vigilance Dr RPV 73 Vigilance Dr RPV 74 Vigil ance Dr RPV 75 Willow Wood Ro ad Rolling Hills Est at es 76 Gle nco e Dr M ar i na Del Ray 7 Attendees did not mark down address or writing was Illegible From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com> Wednesday, August 14, 2019 9:03AM CityCierk; CC Response to Staff Report on Ladera Linda Park Development Regular Business Item #2 Ladera Linda Park Recommendations.pdf Attached is the Ladera Linda HOA Committee Report in response to staffs recommendations for the Ladera Linda Park development. Herb Stark Ladera Linda HOA Committee 1 Ladera Linda Park Study Developed in support of the Ladera Linda Homeowners Association 8/14/2019 Table of Contents Developing the Ladera Linda Park Page Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Resident Issues.............................................. 2 Neighborhood Park Design.............................. 3 Park Usage.................................................... 4 Parking and Views.......................................... 5 Security........................................................ 5 Summary....................................................... 6 Attachment 1 Survey Attachment 2 Letter to the City Council Developing the Ladera Linda Park Introduction Is it any wonder that the design of the park has been going on since 2015? Unfortunately the Parks and Recreation Department started out on the false premise that everyone was a stakeholder in the park's development witl1 the local residents just one input. The result was the Fisher design, a community park, including a dry creek bed and bridge entryway. The park was based upon want not need with the local residents' desire for a neighborhood park rejected. Ladera Linda Park is unique in that it imbedded in a residential area serviced by a single residential road shared by the residents, park, F orrestal Preserve and the AYSO soccer fields. For years, as a result, the residents have been subjected to traffic, noise and night partying on Forrestal. The reason for the Forrestal gate was to stop the trash dumping and night partying at the end of Forrestal. In recent years social media had compounded the problems with more people hiking the preserve. What the residents do not want is the park to become the information center for the preserve attracting more preserve visitors. Additionally, opening up parking on Forrestal will only attract more visitors creating a Del Cerro situation. Also it becomes an ideal ocean viewing spot with the associated Marilynn Ryan Park issues. Because of this the residents want the park to be a neighborhood park and not a community center. The City Council rejected the Fisher design and directed staff to have the new contractor work with the four HOA's and in particular Ladera Linda as the most affected. Unfortunately staff's definition of working with is to present the findings of Johnson Favaro and take inputs. There was no collaboration or cooperation to resolve the concerns of the local residents. The residents have asked why is there this difference between the lower Hesse park residents' collaboration and the Ladera Linda residents' non collaboration. The Ladera Linda residents would love to come before the council in support of the park development as did the Hesse Park residents. Since 2016 there has been no collaboration to resolve the issues. One fundamental problem that prevents the resolution of the issues is staffs instance of using the flawed and rejected Fisher usage design as the baseline for the facility. When Johnson Favaro was contracted to refine the park design, the city council directed staff that Johnson Favaro should start with a clean slate and develop the plans based upon need. The results of using the flawed Fisher design, the number of facility rooms never changed. Compounding the error staff justified the design, manipulating the usage survey, (Attachment 1) conducted by the HOA, to develop a proposed usage of the facility that could never be supported by the local residents. The chart below shows the low survey usage results vs Staff programed usage chart. Ladera Linda Facility Program Usage Staff Recommendations LL Survey Senior Exercise (10-25) 34 Parent N Me (15-20) 1 Kids and Art (1 0-20) 2 Kids Cooking (1 0-20) 0 Senior Book Club (10-30) 10 Nonprofit Mtq (20-50) 11 Senior Balance (1 0-20) 11 Adult Fitness (1 0-20) 22 Kids Music (10-20) 0 Hike/Nature Talk (60-1 00) 0 Child Care Class (10-20) 1 Kids Storytime (1 0-20) 0 Senior Movie (1 0-40) 11 Tia Chi (1 0-20) 1 Senior/Adult Computer (1 0-20) 11 Senior Lunch Social (10-20) 20 Senior Movie Lunch (1 0-40) 10 Community HOA (30-80) N/A Kids Bdav Party 0 Adult Card Games (20-40) 3 Senior/Adult Art (1 0-20) 13 Ceramics (1 0-20) 12 Youth Dance (10-30) 4 Senior/Adult Oil Painting (20-30) 7 After School Program (1 0-20) 1 Yooa 8 Teen Program (1 0-20) 11 Community Rental (10-20) N/A Adult/Senior Dance (1 0-20) 18 Private Rental (30-100) 2 * Based upon the Ladera Linda Survey, 134 inputs representing 54% of the homes Resident Issues %* 25 1 1 0 7 8 8 16 0 0 1 0 8 1 8 15 7 0 2 10 9 3 5 1 6 8 13 1 In 2018 the residents had six issues: 1. Building Size 2. Privacy hedges 3. Views 4. Passive lower field activities 5. Traffic & parking 6. Security Of those issues only the passive lower field activities and privacy hedges have been resolved. Since the July 1Oth Ladera Linda public meeting there has been absolutely no contact between the residents and staff. We have not heard from staff to discuss the meeting results and reach a consensus as how to proceed from here. It was pretty clear, at the meeting, that the vast majority of the attendees wanted a much smaller park building and more security. It gets discouraging when we attend City Council meetings and hear the City Council tell staff to work closely with the residents of Ladera Linda and they simply ignore us. They have meetings with us and supposedly listen to us, but their mind is already made up as to what THEY want to do ahead of time. In one of the private meetings with four of our Committee members, Don Be ll asked Jim Favaro , the arc hitect , if anyth ing we presented to them has changed their m in d on Ladera Linda and his ans w er w as a blunt NO . Our residents are not happy with a building that is almost 300 feet long , covered in glass and with a grass roof and no solar pane ls. We are to ld it is because they would ref lect sun li ght into our homes. Th is does not make sense since the pane ls would be fac ing west away from the homes . We listen to them expounding a f ishbow l des ign while at the C ity Counci l meeting , other staff is ta lkin g about the City 's Green Initiat iv e to add so lar panels on o ur homes and reduce water usage. I guess it bo il s down to "do like I say and not like I do". We were or igina lly to ld by the arch itects that a D isco very Room was not necessary. W e w ere e lated. Then they proceeded to g iv e the Discovery Room 500 more square feet than they presently have plus an outdoor amphitheater and s imply renamed the Discovery Room the Meeting Room, which is now filled with drawers and cab in ets that will be locked 95% of the time . Johnson Favaro called it a bonus room as it is not scheduled to be used for any events. Neighborhood Park Design We have come up wit h a design that we fee l is practica l for Ladera Linda, but no o ne seems to listen to us or care . (See Attachment 2) We rev ised their des ign by remov ing one classroom and the Meeting Room. We also enclosed the middle open area so t hat it can be secured and easily monitored and provided disp lay cases where the artifacts can be displayed every day. Their open bathroom design does not make sense with 1 0 individual to il et rooms with 10 doors and featuring an open trough for washing your hands. Our bui ld in g design is now much shorter at 175 feet long. This shou ld also be a lot less expens iv e and more practical. Park Usage Park usage has been an issue from the start between staff and the residents. Staff's approach has been based upon want and growth whereas the resident's has been need and limited growth to maintain the quality of life of the neighborhood. A classic example of want is the Discovery Room now called a Meeting Room. At best it is used 12 times a year by the docents yet staff is willing to spend close to three quarter of a million dollars of taxpayer's money. Staff is now saying that it can be used by the HOA's and other nonprofit organizations for their board meetings. Most of these people work and hold their meetings at night at a member's home. Why would they want to pay to rent the room at night? The answer is they would not. The other justification is so the city council could meet with residents. Is that why you want to spent three quarters of a million dollars? Johnson Favaro made a big issue of hardscape versus park. They pointed out that the Fisher design had a high percentage of hardscape too park. A resident survey of RPV parks showed that even the Johnson Favaro design was too large for the Ladera Linda Park relative to the other parks in the city as shown in the table below. Facilities vs Park Size Park Facility (ft?) Park Size (Acres) Percent Hesse 7,300 29.4 1% Ryan 1,725 10.3 0.4% PVIC 10,000 28 1% Johnson Favaro 7,300 11 2% The usage of the other parks was also evaluated based upon the size of the facility. This study showed that a three room configuration would more that meet the needs of the local residents. 2018 Park Usage % Usage % Usage Park by Day by Hr. Hesse McTaggart Hall 91.5 25.1 Activity Room 57.7 11 Fireside Room 69.8 11.6 Ryan Meeting Room 54.4 18.5 One reason the McTaggart Hall usage is so high by day it is used for City Council and planning commission meetings which would not be the case for Ladera Linda. When looked at from a program stand point the usage of Hess Park calls for only three rooms . Also consider that the seniors have now moved into their own facility . Summary from the June 2019 Hesse Park Weekly Administrative Reports Average of only 3 programs per day Week Indoor Nonprofit Private Peninsula Misc. City OF Rec. Class Rentals Rentals Seniors Groups Meetings 6/5/19 12 3 1 3 2 1 6/12/19 15 3 3 3 1 1 6/19/19 12 2 0 3 2 2 6/26/19 11 3 0 3 3 2 Total 50 11 4 12 8 6 Parking and Views Total 22 26 21 22 91 Parking along Forrestal has been a major issue long before the park development. The Forrestal gate was put in to stop the trash dumping and night partying at the end of Forrestal. In the past , speeding and trash were also an issues. Any thought to open up parking on Forrestal would be rejected by the residents. As a result of working with the City and AYSO these issues have been reduced. Parking on Forrestal has been prohibited below the Forrestal gate with public parking for the preserve directed into the park. This has been working well and the residents recommend that this be included in the new park design. Social media has increased the number of visitors to the preserve . Forrestal, if opened, would be a natural viewing area for the ocean and sunset parties. Although the hikers on the Pirate trail have not reached the levels of Del Cerro there has been a noticeable increase . During the week of January 21, 2019 for example there were 546 hikers on Pirate trail alone with monthly levels reaching close to 2,000. Unrestricted ocean views from the park would only draw more visitors to the area. Security Ladera Linda Park is situated with two miles of a high crime area. What we do not want to do is create an attraction. The open format suggested by Johnson Favaro would make it difficult to secure the building and an attraction for the homeless. Eliminating the fish bowl effect would make it possible to put security shutters on all windows and glass doors . Crime Repo rt J ul y 1 throlfgh July 31, 201 9 Summary At the August 20 1h city council meeting staff will present the Johnson Favaro suggested design for approval. The residents recommend that council direct the following changes: 1. Enclose the lobby and restrooms for security and privacy issues 2. Reconfigure the "Meeting Room" (Discovery Room), per the council recommendation, by putting the displays in the enclosed lobby and providing the docents with cart storage in support of their preserve field trips 3. Size the facility to meet local needs by deleting one classroom 4. Limit views from park property to discourage Marilynn Ryan park issues 5. Provide limited preserve parking on the upper level with no parking on Forrestal 6. Provide security shutters on all glass doors and windows With these recommended changes the residents would be in favor of the contractor proceeding with the development of the construction drawings for the park. Attachement 1 Ladera Linda Park Homeowner Association Survey On February 2ih the Ladera Linda Homeowner Association (HOA) park committee met with Johnson Favaro, the architect selected by the City to design the Ladera Linda Park and facility. In that discussion the firm laid out their vision for the park. They would be starting from a clean slate with the following guidelines. Decrease the present baseline hardscape to increase the park landscape. This would mean potentially a smaller building and less parking. All rooms in the new facility would be multipurpose to increase the usage and designed to meet present and future needs. The design would be a neighborhood park focused primarily on the needs of the local residents in the four Homeowner Associations, Ladera Linda, Seaview, Seacliff and Mediterrena with priority given to Ladera Linda as the most impacted residents. The Ladera Linda HOA committee's mission, in the design of the park, is to assure the park would not impact negatively on the quality of life of the area residents. Ladera Linda Park is unique in that access to the park is through a residential street and the only access for the residents. This limited access is also shared with the AYSO soccer fields and the nature preserve presenting a parking and traffic problem. The committee's objective is therefore to assure that the scale of the park and facility does not result in a destination venue for social media and party site thus becoming an attractive nuisance. The Ladera Linda HOA Park Committee suggested a survey of their association of 178 residences would be made to give purpose to the design being contracted to Johnson Favaro. (Attachment 1) Other HOA's in attendance and city staff, at the meeting, asked for a copy of the survey form that they might use in some manner. The survey form was developed to give the residents who live nearest the new facility (and those who would be most likely to utilize its amenities) an opportunity to express what they might want to use and enjoy. The form is intended to define interests in major elements of the park as well as activities that could be included in the new building. The survey was sent to all 178 residents of the Ladera Linda HOA by e-mail or hard copy to those residents that did not respond to the e-mail or did not have a computer or valid e-mail address. The survey results are shown in attachment 2 along with comments. Ninety responses were received. The results validated Johnson Favaro's comment of reducing the hardscape in favor of increasing the landscape as the majority of the inputs recommended walking trails, benches and shade areas. Clearly the results show a park with a building on it, not a building with a park around it. As for outside activities, the recommendations were to retain the present activities, paddle tennis courts, children's play area and a basketball court. Although the inputs do not indicate any one program there was interest for activities in the new facility for such programs as socials, fitness & balance, computer classes, movies, and book clubs. This would suggest that a maximum three room configuration would meet the needs of the local community. Those suggested activities could be easily be accommodated in any of the three multi-purpose rooms where the large assembly room could be divided making up the three room configuration. The large assembly room should be sized to accommodate Homeowner Association meetings/socials and the occasional City Council meetings or workshops. In summary the facility design is suggested to follow the following guidelines: • Maximize landscape • All rooms and storage will be multipurpose and used in support of the park • Local neighborhood focused rather than a destination venue • Prevent negative impacts on quality of life of local residents • Avoid being a large crowd friendly location for any purpose • Integrate the shape and appearance of the building into the topography and texture of the site • Limit inclusion of the Discovery Room materials to the facility entrance display cases and to only those items that are local and unique • Allow for future building expansion if justified We prefer to keep it a neighborhood community park that isn't intrusive to the Ladera Linda community's quality of life and the reason we moved here in the first place. Respectively submitted Ladera Linda Park Committee March 19, 2019 Distribution Johnson Favaro Recreation and Parks Staff City Council Members Ladera Linda HOA Board Attachment 1 Ladera Linda Park Use Survey The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has engaged Johnson Favaro Architects (https://www.johnsonfavaro.com) to design the Ladera Linda Park and the Neighborhood Center. In meetings with Johnson Favaro, they have indicated that the park would be designed to meet the needs of the local community. Your HOA Board has developed the following survey to help the contractor plan the facility. Planning means they could determine room numbers, dimensions, conf gurations, and amenities ifth ey knew what future use might be. The survey will also be used by Recreation & Parks to plan activities and schedules for the Center. Please check the box indicating your interest according to age group. A family may have interests in multiple age groups. If you would like to add an activity that is not listed, please include it below under Other. We encourage input from all adult residents of Ladera Linda. We ask you to select your three highest prorities. three from the Park and three from the Center. (Maximum 6 selections per individual) Please return promptly for planning is in progress. Ask your Board if you have any questions. Your opinion is critically important to us. Please take a minute to compete and return the survey. Name _________________ Address ________________________ _ Opt Out I am not interested in participating in Activities at the Neighborhood Center __ Why? _________________ _ Park Activities Paddle Tennis Courts_ Basketball Court __ Picnic Tables_ Children's Play Area_ Walking Trails_ Benches_ Exercise and Fitness Stations_ Shade areas_ Relaxation or meditation area_ Volleyball_ Other----------------------------- How many residents are included in this survey Neighborhood Center Activities Art Ceramics Crafts Oil Painting \Vaterco tors \Voodwork Clubs Movies Scouts Social Discussion Books Financial advice Language skill What language? _____ _ Mommy and me class Travel experience/planning Electronics Computer Cox internet and TV troubleshooting Cell phone learning Exercise Dance What style? __________ _ Balance and strengthening Fitness class Games Board Games Adults Seniors Teens Children Comments Other --------------------------------------------- Attachement 2 Ladera Linda Park Use Survey March 24, 2019 Park Activites Volleyba ll - Re laxation o r med itation a r ea ~-•• Shade areas ~-... --.... -• Exerc ise & Fitness Stat ions Benches Wa l king Tra i ls Chi ldren 's Play Area Picn ic Tab l es Basketball Court Padd le Tenn is Courts 0 10 20 30 40 Responses Residents Ch il dren Teens Seniors Adults 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Responses 50 60 70 80 ~---------- 1 Opt Out Opt Out ~-----------10 Woodwork Teens Woodwork Seniors Woodwork Adults Waterco lors Ch il dren Watercolors Teen s Waterco lors Seniors Waterco lors Adults Oi l Pa in ting Chil dren O il Painting Teens O il Painting Seniors Oil Painting Adu lts Craft Ch il dren Craft Teens Craft Seniors Craft Adults Ce rami cs Ch il dren Ceramics Teens Ceram ics Seniors Ceramics Adults 0 20 Responses Art 10 20 Responses 30 40 30 40 Social Children Social Teens Social Seniors Social Adults Scouts Children Scouts Teens Scouts Seniors Scouts Adu lts Movie Children Movie Teens Movie Seniors Movies Ad u lts 0 Travel Experience Seniors Travel Experience Adults Mommy & Me Seniors Mommy & Me Adu lts Language Skill Children Lang uage Skill Teens Language Skill Seniors Language Skill Adults Financial Advice Teens Financial Advice Seniors Financial Advice Adults Books Ch il dren Books Teen s Books Seniors Books Adults 0 10 Clubs 20 Responses Discussion 10 20 Responses 30 40 30 40 Electronics Cox Internet Seniors Cox Internet Adults Computer Ch ildren Computer Teens Computer Sen iors Computer Adults Cell Phone Seniors Ce ll Phone Adults 0 10 20 Responses Exercise Fi tness Class Teens - Fitn ess Class Seniors Fitness Class Adults Dance Children ~ Dance Teen s ~ Dance Sen iors Dance Adults Balance & Strengthen i ng Seniors Balance & Strengthening Adults 0 10 20 Responses Games Board Games Teens Board Games Seniors Board Games Adu lts 0 10 20 Responses 30 40 30 40 30 40 ladera linda Park Survey Comments Board Comments 1. Mentorship sessions-seniors mentoring I tutoring our middle school high school students; our middle school and high school students teaching our seniors computer skills and how to use their mobile devices better. 2. Service club meetings-either formal (Rotary; Lions; Kiwanis) or just a home- grown Ladera Linda community service organization 3. RPV Great Speakers-start a Great Speakers Night by our own RPV folks on their life experiences I a topic of interest from their careers. We have so many talented, important and interesting people here in our community-just let them show some pictures I charts and talk I lecture--I bet we could even sell tickets 4. After school day care-a safe learning I study place for after school which could dovetail with the mentorship idea above Opt Out 1. I enjoy outdoor activities in open areas, I do not plan to utilize the park facilities, nor am I interested in new facilities that would attract additional visitors from other areas. My preference would be to return the entire grounds to open space area, include it as part of preserves, and control crowds through very limited parking. 2. I don't on plan on utilizing the facilities at Ladera Linda. Open space is the best. No need for a building. Limited parking, I enjoy walking to the LL park. 3. I just want to enjoy my last few years looking at the great view ...... I am 87 and done my participating already. Thanks anyway 4. I have not used the center in the past, I do not plan to in the future. I prefer to keep the area "low key" and not attract outside visitors and traffic 5. No interest. My primary activities including hiking and mountain biking in the preserves, which do not involve the park or community center. 6. Ages, late 80's and early 90's 7. No longer can get there. 8. Lived here for 54 years. Want the best for my neighborhood 9. We are in our very late eighties! 10. Have never used the community center in the past and don't plan on doing so in the future Park Activities 1. Horse shoes, bocce 2. No weddings or musical events 3. Dog park area 4. Would like benches by the walking trails, and shade over the picnic tables near play area. 5. Water fountains with bottle fill stations and clean bathrooms 6. Birding 7. Soccer fields and tennis courts Residents 1. Have adult children and young grandchildren in the south bay Art Watercolors 1. For beginners Clubs Movies 1. Summer Nights Social 1. No weddings or other loud events in the evening Discussion Mommy and Me Class 1. Grandma and me? Language 1. Spanish 2. Italian, For travel 3. or American sign language, French 4. Italian 5. Spanish 6. Spanish Travel Experience 1. Including a photography class Exercise Dance Style 1. Ballroom, 2. Hip Hop, Line 3. Dancing 4. Zumba 5. Other styles ok-square dance, Scottish dance, tap dance, Line dancing 6. Ballet or modern 7. Ballroom 8. Zumba Fitness 1. Yoga TAl CHI 2. Yoga or Pilates 3. Yoga Games 1. Games for teens? Other 1. A facility available for rent for private events 2. Weddings, parties, community meeting place. Community room must be significantly larger than present multipurpose room. Must be able to serve food. Less is More! 3. Most these of this "activities" listed can be done at home. Please don't bring more traffic into the area. 4. Croquet, Bocce Ball, Shuffleboard, Corn hole, Self Defense 5. Please keep as many mature trees and general foliage as possible. 6. I worry for too much traffic, Best park best 7. Pilates, Yoga classes, Music Classes 8. Yoga 9. Would be interested in a GOOD yoga class-teacher should be certified. Would love an arts & crafts class I could do with my grandchildren. I also think a Mommy & Me class or Playgroup would be great, and room for book club meetings. I would use all the above. 10. No late receptions or events, nothing past 2100 11. HOA gatherings--Holiday parties, Annual meetings, Speakers for neighbourhood presentations --e.g. City Council & Safety presentations 12. Please no loud social gatherings such as wedding receptions; maybe offer first aid/CPR/AED training classes 13. No weddings or other loud events in the evening; no large scale events that conflict with AYSO schedule 14. Walking I jogging track/path around perimeter of the park; guest lectures by community members (requires audio-visual capability in the center) 15. Use for local residents, not out-of-city visitors 16. Presentations on local animals, plants and insects, archeology (fossils) Marine manuals (whales, sea lions, etc.), geology and history of the peninsula 17. Tax prep classes 18. Yoga 19.1 will not be participating in any activities at the Neighborhood Center building 20. Active prayer gatherings 21. Astronomy 22. We prefer to keep it a small community park that isn't intrusive to the Ladera Linda community by non-residents of this community Attachment 2 July 27, 2019 Dear City Council, The Ladera Linda Home Owners Association wishes to go on record as strongly urging the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council to accept the Johnson Favaro design for the Ladera Linda Neighborhood Park, as presented at the July 10 Workshop, subject to incorporation of the following key modifications as part of a motion to proceed: "The Neighborhood Park building design shall eliminate one classroom and the meeting room, and shall enclose the lobby and the restrooms. It shall incorporate display cases in the lobby. As a security measure, strong consideration should be given to provide security shutters for all windows and glass doors." A conceptual drawing incorporating these changes is shown below. "The Neighborhood Park shall not contain features, like the amphitheater/steps area shown in the proposal, that encourage larger organized group outdoor activities." "The Neighborhood Park shall provide for limited views to the south, with expansive views not consuming more than 50% of the southern park bluff." "The Neighborhood Park shall contain a designated preserve parking area on the upper terrace (approx. 25 spaces, not on Forrestal Drive). If needed to accomplish this,% basketball court should be removed, but in no case should basketball or tennis courts be moved closer to the southern bluff." Ladera Linda Park Rationale for Changes At the July 1 01h workshop, concerns were raised about the number of rooms (too many), preserve parking location, level of security, and the potential creation of an attractive nuisance. The above motions address these issues, supported as follows: Park Building 1) One less classroom a) Appropriate size for neighborhood programming desires b) Reduces building size and saves money (both construction costs and ongoing maintenance costs) 2) Meeting room removed I lobby enclosed with display cases a) Meeting room scheduling I programming not demonstrated -therefore will likely remain locked the majority of the time and thus, the purpose of the display cases is lost. b) Meeting room would not be used by other organizations at night because of rental costs c) Lobby open at all times staff is present-allows visitors to actually see the most important/interesting artifacts in display cases any time they come 3) Work room opens to outside and to classroom a) Allows carts to be rolled to either location b) Flexible to meet needs and weather conditions 4) Entire perimeter of structure enclosed a) Allows use of security shutters 5) The restrooms are of conventional design to offer greater comfort, security, and efficiency. Amphitheater/Steps Removed 1) Discourages larger organized group outdoor activities (such as weddings) 2) Less noise to neighborhood 3) Not needed-would duplicate PVIC Park Viewing Areas 1) Limited ocean viewing areas will limit the number of people in the park and prevent the Marilynn Ryan Park issues 2) The unintended impact, traffic, noise and trash with a large numbers of visitors Preserve Parking 1) Little demonstrated need beyond what currently exists at the Ladera Linda property 2) Forrestal Parking opens area to becoming a potential Del Cerro neighborhood or Marilynn Ryan Park problem -potential sunset party site 3) Forrestal parking gate control significant issue because of multiple users (already issues with just one gate) Respectfully submitted, Ladera Linda Homeowners Board Ladera Linda Park Committee Ladera Linda HOA Park Building Design (206ft long) ~ ? ? r ? I t t I I -+----+--+---+---- ~ I ! II r r II -t I I r r I I ,.;-..r----+----+----t ~-...,I J Janl:or S ~pll .. F -+--~ -='' ~( I ~ .. ~ .. Johnson Favaro Park Building Design (275ft long) as presented at the July 10, 2019 meeting ~ ? ~ ~ ? I I I I I I I I ~---~-~,--- I t17 I I , =rrr, x'"-w -- I . , ' -r -- From: Emily Colborn Sent: To: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 12:56 PM CityCierk Cc: Subject: Cory Linder; Matt Waters FW: T AJ MAHAL Attachments: SFOB 1029-3937 -4B4E-93AD-A 183F8A3FOD1.png Late Correspondence Emily Colborn, MMC, City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5208 direct (310) 544-5217 office Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail From: G_ZITPA <gzitpa@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 10:37 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: TAJ MAHAL IT is my opinion that from the very first meeting, which I attended, Matt Waters had NO intention (not the slightliest it was HIS project) listening to any of the NO grandiose project for Ladera Linda. What the neighbors had asked was a working water fountain, not the Taj Mahal as your witty photo shows on page 132; helas the real photo of the Taj Mahal is throngs of people and animals and scattered debris all over ; an entry fee has now been instigated in the hope of regulating the flow. Is this our futur? One Park after the other we can see the results of the overzealous disastrous decisions made all over the Peninsula . People move here for the natural feeling and promptly our Staff ,needing projects ,over manages the entire place. I ask the City Council to stop the RPV destinations. respectfully ginette aelony 1 iPad ~ 10:09 100% t a, a taj mahal Hindustan Times Now pay Rs 200 extra to enter Taj Mahal's main mausoleum I india ... l:na;yss rnay be subject to copyright Learn fv1ore Related images From: Sent: To: Subject: Emily Colborn Thursday, August 15, 2019 6:21 PM CityCierk FW: City Council Meeting August 20, 2019 Late Correspondence. Emily Colborn, MMC, City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5208 direct (310) 544-5217 office Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail From: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 5:34AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Home Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com> Subject: City Council Meeting August 20, 2019 In Reference to the August 20, 2019 Council Agenda Regular Business item concerning the Ladera Linda Proposal by Staff. I am Donald Bell and have lived at 3571 Vigilance Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes for 40 years. Please note the following that I submitted to you for the CC meeting December 18, 2018. We have made limited progress with staff in collaboration in a design that meshes with our lives in the Ladera Linda neighborhood. I still oppose the building design. "As you are at the point of making a critical go-no go decision, I note that the Recreation and Parks Department is not tasked with Administration of the Contract. That is definitely a good strategy. Maybe now an unbiased design can be generated with Direct Neighborhood Participation in the Pre-Design Phase 1. Ladera Linda HOA Committee has already developed design concepts for the building and park that we firmly believe are economic, serve the community, and will meet neighborhood approval. Those concepts were not incorporated into the R&P March 28, 2018 submission to City Council or in the RFP now in hand of Johnson Favaro. We still question how R&P proceeded to design a Neighborhood Community Center that has resulted in neighborhood opposition. Ladera Linda Community Center has never been a well established activity center due to its geographic and associated geologic separation from the majority of RPV residents. Based on city data provided to the Ladera Linda Homeowners Park Committee, it is clear that the existing facility is empty most of the time. Is there any assurance that building a new facility will cause it to be filled with users? What activities does Recreation and Parks now offer that is filling the other Park Facilities? Those buildings now also have empty schedules. A very close review of R&P plans needs to be made to find ways to reduce the scope and amenities of the building and park. I hope cooperation can be found to have an economic Community Center and Park and save millions in the process.· 1 ~. I would also ask before the project gets too advanced that budget estimates from R&P are presented to CC to include many project costs that have yet to be defined. There will be costs associated with emptying, moving and storing the contents of the existing buildings and grounds. There will be costs to furnish the new building. There will be costs to install information, telephone, security, and fire alarm systems. There will be costs to house the LL staff during project construction. There will be costs to create proposed Discovery Room displays and carts. Then there are future increased costs for the R&P staff increase to be open more hours, for more janitorial services, for the increased utilities expense of more park lighting and a larger active building and for more park maintenance and security services. And finally there is an internal soft cost of staff taking over parts of the project management with time that could be used on alternate city business. I finally ask that funding sources be clearly identified now to cover all the costs of what may be a $10 million dollar Park (Richard Fisher made a construction cost estimate in 2017 of $8.8 million). Already $1 million dollars in identified and unidentified costs (not included in the Fisher estimate) have likely been spent or are being requested in the Professional Services Agreement. It is incumbent on City Council to fully understand the entire fiscal impact of this project. Smaller is also cheaper! Thank you for your service to the community." Someone has to take responsibility for being presented again with a design that has strong neighborhood opposition. None of the concerns I expressed 9 months ago have been addressed or answered. As the managers of the City, you are responsible for the actions of staff. Does no one have any ability to have the city staff work with its residents? They have no concept of true collaboration. Can you actually compel them to perform to your directions? A concerned resident, Don Bell 2 From: Sent: To: Emily Colborn Friday, August 16, 2019 8:19AM CityCierk Subject: Fwd: Ladera Linda Park Late correspondence Emily Colborn Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com> Date: August 16,2019 at 7:41:58 AM PDT To: cc@rpvca.gov Subject: Ladera Linda Park Re: August 20, staff report, regular business item #2, Ladera Linda Park Dear Council members, By the time you receive this email, you will have undoubtedly had an opportunity to review the recent proposal submitted by our Neighborhood Park Committee. As a result, I 'II avoid repetition and state my overall view of the situation. Simply stated, the staff proposal you are considering is too large. The local infrastructure is not equipped to support the larger attractional park the staff plan has presented. These facts are well stated in the LL Park committees alternative plan. In the staff recommendation, the elements included are too vast and, I might add, many not supported by the recent neighborhood survey. There are many supporting issues such as, parking, security and created scenic views, all of which will be presented by our local citizens at the council meeting on August 20th. Without reservation, I support the alternative plan as presented. When approved, it will produce the fine properly sized park desired by the surrounding neighborhoods. Respectfully, Bill Schurmer 32468 Searaven Dr. Sent from Bill's iPhone 1 ~. From: Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 4:27 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fw: Ladera Linda Park Dear Council Members, This is a addendum to my husbands attached correspondence sent to you yesterday. He missed one important point. I attended the July 10 meeting at Ladera Linda and was a member of a breakout group, which I believe were seven in number. Without exception, the feedback (from each group) that followed the sessions reflected that the staff proposed facility was too large (that obviously was the feeling of the group I sat in). Mostly stated in the elimination of one of the classrooms. This seems to be in direct conflict of the architects observations that size was not a problem with the local residents. I know what I observed. Sharon Schurmer 32468 Searaven Dr. -----Forwarded Message ----- From: Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com> To: "cc@rpvca.gov" <cc@rpvca.gov> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019, 7:41:58 AM PDT Subject: Ladera Linda Park Re: August 20, staff report, regular business item #2, Ladera Linda Park Dear Council members, By the time you receive this email, you will have undoubtedly had an opportunity to review the recent proposal submitted by our Neighborhood Park Committee. As a result, I'll avoid repetition and state my overall view of the situation. Simply stated, the staff proposal you are considering is too large. The local infrastructure is not equipped to support the larger attractional park the staff plan has presented. These facts are well stated in the LL Park committees alternative plan. In the staff recommendation, the elements included are too vast and, I might add, many not supported by the recent neighborhood survey. There are many supporting issues such as, parking, security and created scenic views, all of which will be presented by our local citizens at the council meeting on August 20th. Without reservation, I support the alternative plan as presented. When approved, it will produce the fine properly sized park desired by the surrounding neighborhoods. Respectfully, Bill Schurmer 32468 Searaven Dr. Sent from Bill's iPhone 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Monday, August 19, 2019 9:47AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli FW: Ladera Linda From: Charles Agnew <cvagnew@cox.net> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019 3:38PM To: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov>; Planning <Pianning@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Mona Dill <MonaD@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com <jduhovic@hotmail.com>; Ken Dyda <cprotem73@cox.net>; Finance <Finance@rpvca.gov>; Sean Larvenz <SeanL@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Parks <Parks@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@ rpvca .gov> Subject: Ladera Linda We've Come a Long Way • Tennis Courts Possible Future Uses-November 12, 2014 • • • • • • • • • • • • Community Center Gymnasium Pool Nature Center/Preserve Nexus Walking Paths with Fitness Stations Sports/Multi-Use Fields Park Ranger/Deputy Sheriff Drop-In Office Dog Park Additional Paddle Tennis Courts Bocce Ball Courts Tricycle Park Picnic Tables, Shade Structures, Viewpoints, BBQs 1 /). Thank you for the work you have done. It's a greatly reduced plan. My name is Charles Agnew. I live at 32261 Phantom Dr. I am a 48 year resident of Ladera Linda. Yes the overall plan has been toned down at the neighbor's request. But, the Community Center should provide for a 150 person event with cooking, dining, & dancing amenities. We use to hold neighborhood dinner dances, children's birthday parties, Christmas functions, Halloween fun houses, neighborhood block parties, square dancing, and etcetera at our Community Center. With proper improvements we can do it again. We don't have annual dinner dances like we use to, partly because the price has become prohibitive. With a modern Community Room that facility could become attractive again. I believe the present multi-purpose room can hold a maximum of 100 people. I doubt that the proposed multi-purpose room can hold that many, and what about a cooking facility? The old folks are leaving our neighborhood little by little and will be replaced by younger people with kids. The Community Center should plan ahead and provide for that need. It's important that we have an outstanding facility for our neighborhood, while minimizing attractive facilities for out of neighborhood parties. I use the paddle tennis courts twice weekly and have done so for over 29 years. Facilities need to be improved for washing down the courts. The outer dirt circumference of the courts need to be lowered so that water, and dirt on the courts has a place to go. 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late carr Teresa Takaoka Monday, August 19, 2019 9:39 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli FW: August 20, 2019 regular business agenda item 2, Ladera Linda Neighborhood Park From: grapecon@cox.net <grapecon@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 11:16 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov> Subject: August 20, 2019 regular business agenda item 2, Ladera Linda Neighborhood Park Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro-tem, and City Councilmembers: I am writing to you today regarding the August 20, 2019 City Council meeting regular business agenda item #2 concerning the Ladera Linda Neighborhood Park. I strongly urge you to move forward with the staff proposed plan, subject to the additional modifications indicated in Attachment F. Attachment F includes 4 modifications, written in the form of addendums to a motion to proceed, that have been presented by the LLHOA Parks Committee (of which I am a member), and are also supported by the LLHOA Homeowners Board. Each of you have previously received this document, so I will not go through each of the details. Residents of LLHOA are very concerned that overdevelopment of this neighborhood park, along with opening up sweeping panoramic ocean and Peninsula views, would create an "attractive nuisance" and turn this park (and adjacent access to the preserves) into a "destination venue," encouraging people to come from far beyond the city boundaries. As you know, this site is unique in that it is located at the end of a residential 2 lane street, accessible from PV Drive South {which itself is also 2 lanes in this area and already suffering from increased traffic and safety concerns in recent years). With only one ingress/egress that is shared with residents, AYSO participants, and preserve users, the potential for significant problems with traffic, safety, crime, and security is high. I truly believe the LLHOA Parks Committee, with support of the LLHOA Board, has taken the latest staff proposed design and has come up with reasonable modifications to the building and other park features to minimize the above concerns, while still creating a functional facility and neighborhood park that would benefit the residents of RPV. We are not interested in a building that provides for the greatest range of potential uses, but rather one that fits basic needs ofthe local community. We don't believe this location is an appropriate location for the City's purported embrace of its majestic views, given the limited vehicular access and proximity to residences. Outdoor features not requested by residents that attract additional uses (for example, weddings), such as amphitheater steps, should be avoided. LLHOA residents will be directly impacted by preserve parking and we believe our request to locate all parking on the park site (not Forrestal) is reasonable (and, by the way, that is where it is currently located-we see no compelling reason or benefit to changing that). I am sure you realize that the decisions you make on Tuesday evening, August 20th, have the potential to positively, or negatively, impact a significant number of RPV residents, and in particular residents of LLHOA, for many, many years to come. I unfortunately will not be able to attend the council meeting on Tuesday due to a business commitment, but I will be eagerly watching the video feed and will be quite interested in what each of you has to say. Your comments on building size, the importance (or lack of importance) in opening up views, parking and impacts of the adjacent preserve, and how much weight you give to the most directly impacted residents will, I believe, set an important precedent, not just for this project, but for future projects to come. I anticipate this issue will also be addressed at some point by candidates running for open CC seats this Fall, so their comments over the coming weeks should be very informative to all RPV residents in deciding the makeup of the City Council moving forward. 1 Thank you for considering my comments, and I want thank each one of you for all your efforts and the time you volunteer to help make RPV a better city and community. I will end with an excerpt from the original RPV General Plan document: "It shall be the goal of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes through proper land use planning and regulations, to provide for a quiet and serene residential community." I hope that your decisions Tuesday night will embrace this goal. Regards Gary Randall 2 From: Sent: To: Teresa Takaoka Monday, August 19, 2019 9:39 AM Enyssa Memoli; Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: August 20, 2019 regular business agenda item 2, Ladera Linda Neighborhood Park From: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 11:23 AM To: Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: August 20, 2019 regular business agenda item 2, Ladera Linda Neighborhood Park Very good letter Herb On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 11:15 AM <grapecon@cox.net> wrote: Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro-tem, and City Councilmembers: I am writing to you today regarding the August 20, 2019 City Council meeting regular business agenda item #2 concerning the Ladera Linda Neighborhood Park. I strongly urge you to move forward with the staff proposed plan, subject to the additional modifications indicated in Attachment F. Attachment F includes 4 modifications, written in the form of addendums to a motion to proceed, that have been presented by the LLHOA Parks Committee (of which I am a member), and are also supported by the LLHOA Homeowners Board. Each of you have previously received this document, so I will not go through each of the details. Residents ofLLHOA are very concerned that overdevelopment ofthis neighborhood park, along with opening up sweeping panoramic ocean and Peninsula views, would create an "attractive nuisance" and turn this park (and adjacent access to the preserves) into a "destination venue," encouraging people to come from far beyond the city boundaries. As you know, this site is unique in that it is located at the end of a residential 2 lane street, accessible from PV Drive South (which itself is also 2lanes in this area and already suffering from increased traffic and safety concerns in recent years). With only one ingress/egress that is shared with residents, A YSO participants, and preserve users, the potential for significant problems with traffic, safety, crime, and security is high. I truly believe the LLHOA Parks Committee, with support ofthe LLHOA Board, has taken the latest staff proposed design and has come up with reasonable modifications to the building and other park features to minimize the above concerns, while still creating a functional facility and neighborhood park that would benefit the residents of RPV. We are not interested in a building that provides for the greatest range of potential uses, but rather one that fits basic needs of the local community. We don't believe this location is an appropriate location for the City's purported embrace of its majestic views, given the limited vehicular access and proximity to residences. Outdoor features not requested by residents that attract additional uses (for example, weddings), such as amphitheater steps, 1 2. should be avoided. LLHOA residents will be directly impacted by preserve parking and we believe our request to locate all parking on the park site (not Forrestal) is reasonable (and, by the way, that is where it is currently located- we see no compelling reason or benefit to changing that). I am sure you realize that the decisions you make on Tuesday evening, August 20th, have the potential to positively, or negatively, impact a significant number ofRPV residents, and in particular residents ofLLHOA, for many, many . years to come. I unfortunately will not be able to attend the council meeting on Tuesday due to a business commitment, but I will be eagerly watching the video feed and will be quite interested in what each of you has to say. Your comments on building size, the importance (or lack of importance) in opening up views, parking and impacts of the adjacent preserve, and how much weight you give to the most directly impacted residents will, I believe, set an important precedent, not just for this project, but for future projects to come. I anticipate this issue will also be addressed at some point by candidates running for open CC seats this Fall, so their comments over the coming weeks should be very informative to all RPV residents in deciding the makeup of the City Council moving forward. Thank you for considering my comments, and I want thank each one of you for all your efforts and the time you volunteer to help make RPV a better city and community. I will end with an excerpt from the original RPV General Plan document: "It shall be the goal of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes through proper land use planning and regulations, to provide for a quiet and serene residential community." I hope that your decisions Tuesday night will embrace this goal. Regards Gary Randall 2 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 9:35 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli To: Subject: FW: Redevelopment plan for Ladera Linda Park Late carr From: Jen Bulatao <bjenn8@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 1:35 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Redevelopment plan for Ladera Linda Park Dear Members of the City Council I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes and the mother of a boy in Boy Scouts (Mountain Men). I am not able to attend the City Council meeting because of a prior engagement that I must attend. I am writing to let you know I support the current redevelopment plan for Ladera Linda Park. • The Ladera Linda Park is the one City facility on this side of the Hill and is a resource for all of the surrounding neighborhoods in this part of the City. • The current proposal is certainly consistent with the "less is more approach" as directed by Council. • I personally would have liked a facility with a gym and a pool, but I also understand that nearby residents are concerned about traffic and disturbances. The current Plan strikes the right balance. • My family would use the Park. We used one of the rooms at the Park for our recent Cub Scout graduation and I am sure it would be used for both Pack and smaller Den Meetings. • I also have a younger child and would use the Playground Equipment. • I also would like it if there were some classes at the Park. It would bring people together and is more convenient than having to drive to San Pedro or Torrance. • I don't think parking for the Preserve should be located in the Park. It is a bad idea to take Park space for parking, especially where there is space up on the portion of Forrestal behind the gate. Putting more parking spaces right near the area where the kids play equipment will be located also is a safety issue. • I hope the City makes its decision on the needs of the community for the next 40 years. You can't just add more rooms to smaller facility if demand increases and I would think the additional expense now would be modest as part of the larger project. • I support the Discovery Room. There are wonderful collections that we are lucky to have. We have visited and enjoy the smaller setting, especially where we then can take a hike and see things we learned about. Sincerely, 1 Jennifer Bulatao Sent from my iPhone 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Honoable Councilmembers, rjvaleri@cox.net Monday, August 19, 2019 11:46 AM CityClerk Comments regarding Ladera Linda Master Park Plan Final LL park plan comments.docx Please accept the following attached memorandum as comments to the Staff Report regarding Ladera Linda Park. Thank you, Sandra Valeri, RPV resident 1 To: RPV Council Members Re: Ladera Linda Master Park Plan I was thoroughly dismayed and actually disgusted to read the final staff report and recommendations. What is the point of holding multiple community meetings and forums, with the stated intent of soliciting input, only to disregard all the community input and request? They final plan presented in the staff report has not addressed ANY of the concerns raised by community members at the many forums and meetings I have attended. Vote NO on the staff recommended plan, because it does not honestly represent or address the community's input. 1. SIZE AND UTILIZATION: I was at the July 10th meeting. The overwhelming number of respondents did ask for a smaller building; a reduction of one classroom. Those who did not request a reduction is footprint size, still expressed concerns regarding the proposed scheduled utilization of the proposed building, which is not mentioned in the staff report at all. It was the sheer number of scheduled activities allowed by the extra room that would lead to an invasion of non-stop traffic into our neighborhood, which has only one point of egress. We asked that IF the building size remained the same, that some restrictions be put into place to limit the amount of scheduled activities to reduce traffic, congestion on Forrestal, and noise. That is also not address anywhere in the staff report. 2. PARKING COMMENTS: Parking was a major concern expressed by many. The table showing "number of comment cards" is extremely misleading. We had 6 or 7 roundtables, and each and every round table listed the 25 parking spaces on rorrestal as a concern. And we were told we could turn in comment cards IF our concerns were not included in our respective roundtable summaries. Therefore most people did not turn in cards on the issue, because it had been addressed in their roundtable summary. 3. FORRESTAL PARKING: With the Forrestal parking it comes down to this, the residents of Ladera Linda do not want to be the next Del Cerro. You are deliberately creating a public nuisance in our neighborhood. We know that large groups of people will come for the meet ups, and LL will become the preferred location for large groups, since it will be the only place where you are creating large amounts of public parking to handle big groups. We know that they will not abide by the park hour restrictions, drinking or smoking rules, or noise considerations. We know this because it is already happening here and elsewhere, and you will only exacerbate the problem. The city does not have the resources to fully patrol the preserve, or to man the new parking area 24/7 to ensure compliance as the staff report recommends, this is nonsense that will never happen. The majority of attendees were clear that they do not want ANY parking on Forrestal; a few others expressed that they could live with a few spaces, like S-7, which is what is needed to accommodate preserve parking here. But best yet would be to leave parking on Forrestal designated exclusively for police, emergency vehicles, or park maintenance vehicles. 4. COMMENT CARDS MISREPRESENTED: If the staff would have told the participants that comments included in the roundtable group summaries would be tossed, and ONLY Comment Cards would be counted, I am sure they would have received many, many more comments cards regarding Forrestal parking, building size and utilization, and other issues. It is disingenuous if not downright deceptive to lead the participants to believe that they only needed to turn in comments cards for items they did not feel were properly represented in their roundtable summaries, and then NOT include the roundtable summaries in the staff report. It completely and deliberately misrepresents the combined comments and concerns of the group. 5. A PARK NOT A BUILDING: In the final verbal comment session, I heard at least 6 attendees, probably more, express that they wanted a "Park", not a "Community center". But again staff failed to count anything in their report other than the handful of written comment cards. 6. CHILDREN FIRST: Parks should be for children, and that is lost in this master plan! In the roundtables and in verbal comments, multiple concerns were expressed about there being adequate space and resources devoted to a children's playground. This of course should be the heart and soul of any community park, and it barely gets a small dot on the plan, like it's just a vague afterthought if space is available. But no real space or planning is provided for a children's playground. My children are grown now, 2 in college and one a Junior in HS. But we moved here when the oldest was only 9 months old. While the kids were young, I never had a decent playground to take my kids to in RPV. The play equipment at LL was lacking, horrible, and wasn't even one single bench for a watchful parent to sit. Hess park playground was awful, and Ryan park was wonderful for older elementary kids, but nothing for younger siblings. I had to drive my kids to neighboring city parks like Highridge in RHE or Friendship in San Pedro for them to have any reasonable playground, and that is still the case today. Kids need a place to play, more today than ever, they need to escape their electronics and go outside. And this plan barely gives lip service to that. Provide more space and a real plan for a children's playgound. In summary, the staff reports disregards, negates, and ignores the community's input provided many times over. The staff has disrespected the residents, wasted their time, and wasted precious limited city funds in holding numerous community forums that were only for show, and did not address or incorporate the residents' input. I urge the city to vote NO on this plan as presented, until the staff can do an HONEST job of representing and addressing the community's input. Sincerely, Sandra Valeri From: Sent: To: Subject: This was in my junk folder LC -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Monday, August 19, 2019 11:30 AM Enyssa Momoli; Nathan Zweizig FW: LL Proposed Park Design From: Irene Henrikson <irene.henrikson@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 8:49 AM To: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov> Subject: LL Proposed Park Design As a resident of the Ladera Linda neighborhood, the proposed park design is of special interest to our family. We are particularly concerned about the safety of our area and the amount of people using the facilities. Therefore, the size of the facility should be limited to local needs.; one less classroom and no parking on Forrestal. The restrooms should be enclosed like Pt Vicente park. Limit the park views to give Seaview residents privacy. A glass structure invites vandals so windows and doors should be provided with shutters. No events such as weddings, etc should be allowed as the noise echos through the neighborhood. Staff as well as City Council should listen and act upon our requests. Respectfully, Paul and Irene Henrikson 32404 Searaven Dr Sent from my iPhone 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: LC Teresa Takaoka Monday, August 19, 2019 11:29 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli FW: Ladera Linda Project From: Pam Andresen <andresen.pam@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 11:06 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Project Hello- I am a resident in the Mediterrania neighborhood and am unable to make the meeting tomorrow regarding the Ladera Linda Project. As a resident of only 2+ years I struggle finding a nearby park for our family. We currently frequent a park in San Pedro which is the best park close to our home. While I understand that those living close to Ladera Linda park have concerns but this is a community issue/opportunity. We need to look out for the greater good of the community, not to be overtaken by strong voices of a few in the local vicinity. I strongly encourage the RPV City Council continue to look at the greater good of the community and bring a much needed quality park to this side of the hill. Thank you for your consideration. -Pam 1 ~. From: Sent: To: Subject: LC Teresa Takaoka Monday, August 19, 2019 11:28 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Memoli FW: Support for Ladera Linda Park Project From: Craig Whited <craigwhited@cox.net> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 11:18 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Support for Ladera Linda Park Project RPV City Council Please move forward on this. Although I would have preferred a larger footprint, we need to get going on the project right away. Thanks, Craig & Gilda Whited 1 /1. From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 7:49 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli FW: Ladera Linda Park To: Subject: Late carr From: Gustavo Valero <gjvalero@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 6:25AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Park Dear Members of the City Council I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes and the father/mother of a boy in Cub Scouts. I am not able to attend the City Council meeting because of work commitments I am writing to let you know I support the current redevelopment plan for Ladera Linda Park. • The Ladera Linda Park is the one City facility on this side of the Hill and is a resource for all of the surrounding neighborhoods in this part of the City. • The current proposal is certainly consistent with the "less is more approach" as directed by Council. • I personally would have liked a facility with a gym and a pool, but I also understand that nearby residents are concerned about traffic and disturbances. The current Plan strikes the right balance. • My family would use the Park. We used one of the rooms at the Park for our recent Cub Scout graduation and I am sure it would be used for both Pack and smaller Den Meetings. • I also have a younger child and would use the Playground Equipment. • I also would like it if there were some classes at the Park. It would bring people together and is more convenient than having to drive to San Pedro or Torrance. • I don't think parking for the Preserve should be located in the Park. It is a bad idea to take Park space for parking, especially where there is space up on the portion of Forrestal behind the gate. Putting more parking spaces right near the area where the kids play equipment will be located also is a safety issue. • I hope the City makes its decision on the needs of the community for the next 40 years. You can't just add more rooms to smaller facility if demand increases and I would think the additional expense now would be modest as part of the larger project. • I support the Discovery Room. There are wonderful collections that we are lucky to have. We have visited and enjoy the smaller setting, especially where we then can take a hike and see things we learned about. PS -If you don't support the Project, that also is fine. Everyone should make their voice heard. Regards Gustavo Valero 1 /1. From: Sent: To: Subject: Patricia Stenehjem < patsyanntoo@yahoo.com > Sunday, August 18, 2019 7:47 PM CityCierk Ladera Linda Park design I reside directly to the East of the park property, across Forrestal Drive. I am contacting you in support of the issues brought up by our HOA board. I am particularly concerned about parking for the preserve. There should not be parking on Forrestal beyond the current gate. It has seemed to work well to have trail parking at the park so far, and the current spaces are fewer than projected. Before the curbs were painted red on Forrestal, there were always issues with noise and trash, especially on weekends. I can only see more problems if the parking spots are added above the current gate, not the least of which would be privacy. The road is at an angle that allows views from the proposed parking area directly into my home, and at night car headlights shine directly into my home as cars drive down Forrestal . Many times the Forrestal gate has not been shut and locked, which could cause further issues (such as fires and loitering)if cars are allowed to park there. I'm also concerned about the building having so much glass; especially during certain seasons, the sun beats down strongly, and reflects off glass. I can imagine how it would reflect onto neighboring homes, as well as the dry chaparral, not to mention other safety and privacy issues presented by all the glass. Respectfully, Patricia Stenehjem Sent from my iPad 1 2. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sunday, August 18, 2019 10:14 AM CityCierk Matt Waters Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Master Plan In regard to Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Master Plan we support the Ladera Linda Park committee in their recommendations for modifications to the Johnson Favaro) the plan. • Size-this is a neighborhood park and should be appropriate for the community it serves (basically our HOA and the three adjacent ones); not a regional or end destination facility. Size should be appropriate for our neighborhood- proposed facility design is at least one room too big for our needs. • Security-openness of facility design providing "hiding spaces" for vandals and the number of outside doors to secure (including the individual restrooms); too much glass to break/vandalize in the design. • Additional Parking and Traffic-25 additional spaces along Forrestal are proposed in the design (plus those at park level); our neighborhood park is our facility, not a jumping off point for Docent walks and hikers walking the preserve trails. • Views I Other Issues-need to keep the enjoyable view to a reasonable level to avoid excessive sunset viewer traffic and maintain Seaview homes privacy; open space-with a lot of natural landscaping is there still enough open space for the children to still openly run about? maintenance-flat roof design with grasses covering it (leaks?) and lots of glass in the design to protect I care for. Gene and Lynne Dewey 3720 Vigilance DR 1 ~. From: Sent: To: Dear City Clerk, Steven Carlsen <surfsupsteve@gmail.com> Saturday, August 17, 2019 6:37 PM CityCierk These issues are of paramount importance to the residents of Ladera Linda including me and my family. We have lived at 33257 Searaven for 13 years. 1. Enclose the lobby and restrooms for security and privacy issues 2. Reconfigure the "Meeting Room" (Discovery Room), per the council recommendation, by putting the displays in the enclosed lobby and providing the docents with cart storage in support of their preserve field trips 3. Size the facility to meet local needs by deleting one classroom 4. Limit views from park property to discourage Marilynn Ryan park issues 5. Provide limited preserve parking on the upper level with no parking on Forrestal 6. Provide security shutters on all glass doors and windows Thank you for helping us preserve the integrity of our small neighborhood. Steven Carlsen 1 d. From: Sent: To: Subject: Colleen Moon <colleenrmoon@gmail.com> Saturday, August 17, 2019 5:26 PM CityCierk Ladera Linda Park Development To all the members and officials involved in the final decision on the development of Ladera Linda's recreational facilities. Board Members, decision makers, as a resident of Ladera Linda for more than 30 years I ask you, If You lived in the Ladera Linda Community would you encourage, support this project as it is designed today? Bordered by dry brush on surrounding hillsides, no traffic signals, one way in and one way out street configuration, over 100 plus families living here already using the existing, minimal street entrance, exit on Forrestal your Answer would be NO! Therefore what must be your motivation? $'sand not What You Were Elected to Do, Represent The Best Interests of The Community of RPV. With Crime on the Rise on the Western Corridor, a Recreation Facility of this magnitude so close to Western seems reckless. There is so much more to say here but I know your conscience needs no reminder, I will conclude with these requests. 1) Enclose the lobby and restrooms for security. 2) Reconfigure the "Meeting Room" 3) Limit Views from parking on upper level 4) No Parking on Forrestal 5) Security Shutters on all Glass Doors and Windows As Servants of This Community, even though you do not live in Ladera Linda I ask you act on these and more requests of my fellow neighbors have voiced with Integrity and as though you, your children were! Colleen Moon Colleen R. Moon, President Complete Cosmetics, Inc. www.premierecollectionskincare.com Phone: (310) 233-2731 I (800) 528-1818 Fax: (310) 518-2989 24414 S. Main St. 209 Carson, CA 90745 1 ' From: Sent: To: bjhilde@aol.com Monday, August 19, 2019 12:34 PM CityCierk of removable metal covers. The glass walls, aside from needing breakage protection will soon prove to be the most energy- gobbling feature of the building. Might mention that sodded roofs ought to be left to Sweden and other parts of Europe, not RPV. The enclosed size seems too large for this location; ever since the city took over the school property, there has never been a need for more than one classroom except when the Montessori School was a lessee. Reduce the number of CRs. The inclusion of restrooms accessible from the outside must be eliminated lest the park become a camp ground for street people. Location of the building must consider that the community does not want a "destination park. (At the last public meeting all of the small groups voiced that same opinion. Siting of the building should not offer more than a 30-40 degree view corridor southward from the building. Noise generation must be kept to a minimum by design in consideration of the LL neighbors eastward across Forrestal as well as Seaview neighbors downhill to the west. Use of upper Forrestal Dr. for parking must be minimized to eliminate issues related to "the gate" that have plagued LLHOA in the past. Barry J. Hildebrand 3560 Vigilance Drive, RPV Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 1:39 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Park Members of the City Council I am the current President of the Mediterrania HOA and also the Cubmaster for Cub Scout Pack 955 at Mira Catalina School. In my role as President of the MHOA, I have served as the lead MHOA representative on the ad hoc committee providing input in the development of the final design. My constituencies strongly support moving forward with the next phase of the Ladera Linda Park Project. Unfortunately, I am out of town and cannot attend the meeting tomorrow to express my support. The same is true of many people who have school aged kids as this is the last week of summer vacation. I can assure you that, as before, I have spoken to dozens of residents over the past week or two and they all continue to share these views. 1. The Current Direction Represents a Consensus after Much Compromise and Nothing Has Changed. There simply is no way to make everyone 100% happy. There are a significant number of people who want nothing and there are a significant number of people who want more amenities such as a swimming pool and a gymnasium. The City Staff and prior design firm worked hard to integrate and balance competing interests and agendas. The people who I represent did not get everything they wanted, but we understand that neither have the residents of Ladera Linda. Johnson Favarro (JF) took the prior design and improved it. The proposed final design represents a reasonable compromise and we do not believe anything has changed since the Council voted to move forward with the basic concept. The legitimate concerns of specific residents have been addressed in this final design phase and any fine tuning can be accomplished as JF proceeds with the construction drawings. We respect the desire for peace and quiet, but there also are a growing number of people like my family who have more recently moved into the area with children. We love the semi-rural feel of Rancho Palos Verdes, but do not believe that lower impact development means no development. We deserve a Park for families to use and for kids to play. It also is important to keep in mind that the foundation for safety and security is a strong relationship between neighbors. This Park and Community Center will bring people together-old and new-and foster those crucial relationships. 2. The Process Leading to the Final Design Included Extensive Input and Meaningful Changes to Address Legitimate concerns. I have seen some very nasty e-mails floating around complaining that City Staff and JF have never listened to community input. This is simply untrue and I am becoming increasingly concerned that further delay will cause serious damage to community relations. I personally have spent dozens of hours at community workshops, Council Meetings, helping with the unanimous selection of JF, and in a series of small group meetings to refine the Design. Even the prior design represented major compromises. During this process, further changes have been made, including red striping Forrestal, adding additional signage, increasing traffic control, and moving the building further away and tucked into the contour to decrease visual and noise impacts, as well as moving the sports and kids recreation areas to the back, and adding a significant buffer zone to avoid visual impact on Seaview. One of the Seaview residents who lives directly below the Park participated in the process and expressed satisfaction with this accommodation. JF also substantially decreased the square footage of the building to a number that is below the "best case" (smallest) scenario put forward last year by the LLHOA. 3. The Size of the Building Should Not Be Reduced. As noted, the final proposed design is less than 7,000 square feet which is less than half the existing footprint, more than 20% smaller than the prior design, a~d even smaller than the two "designs" recommended last year by LLHOA. Even more importantly, the JF 1 • design is based on actual programming needs as expressed by LLHOA and other residents. Now some of the LLHOA residents and other opponents simply want to move the goalpost. There are several important points. (A) Eliminating another 10% will not reduce 10% of the cost; nor will adding 1 0% later cost only 10% -- anyone who has been involved with a house remodel project knows how much it costs to add square footage as compared to original construction. (B) Proper planning for building meeting and conference rooms is not based on 100% utilization -even in commercial buildings 40-60% utilization is the guideline for common meeting space and this is based on current utilization. https://robinpowered.com/blog/calculate-office-space- meeting-room-utilization/ Here, the City needs to plan for the next 30-40 years. (C) Remaining issues with usage, traffic and noise can be mitigated through proper scheduling protocols. The people I speak for would never want this Park to become a major wedding venue. I assured the LLHOA representatives that the MHOA would fully back them on ensuring this Park did not become a magnet, while also ensuring that the Park is functional and can be an important Community Center for members of the surrounding neighborhoods. I'll only briefly add that the proposed Community Center is not simply a Ladera Linda "Clubhouse". While it is not intended as a major City-wide destination, it is a City-funded Park and the only City facility serving the various neighborhoods surrounding the Park (which, in my view, is the area served by Mira Catalina School). Residents on this side of the Hill should not be forced to drive to San Pedro or Torrance just to take a class (especially elderly residents who should be encouraged not discouraged from socializing). 4. Preserve Parking should not be in Ladera Linda Park. A year ago, LLHOA representatives were adamant that Preserve parking be moved as far away as possible from the Park (and their neighborhood). Somehow that view shifted to a proposal to put the Preserve parking in the Park and build stairs up the Preserve access. This is not a good idea (A) adding a lot of parking near the area where kids will be playing creates a larger safety issue than it solves (B) pulling people who want access the Preserve into the Park also creates security issues by creating hidden areas including any stairs, and (C) most importantly, sacrificing limited Park space for parking is contrary to good planning. Preserve parking is a serious issue but should be decoupled from the final construction drawing process. I again assure the LLHOA that the MHOA will support efforts to have the City address this issue in a timely manner (i.e. before the final decision to fund the Park construction). 5. Discovery Room. We are happy to see the Discovery Room is being preserved in a modified format. While I personally and some of our MHOA residents wanted to keep a dedicated Discovery Room, the proposed design allows greater flexibility while retaining key dedicated space for storage and prep. The Room and the Collections are priceless-both literally and also because it is a small, intimate space where the Docents and kids can interact and learn in a manner that cannot be replicated in the larger PVIC facility. I can't imagine the City would give this up just to save a few hundred square feet of construction costs. Once you shut it down or alter its basic concept, you will lose the resource for ever as it would be less appealing to both docents and families and likely will slowly dwindle down to nothing. 6. Avoid Death By a Thousand Small Cuts or Through Continuous Studies. We all understand that building this facility will cost a considerable amount of money and I am sure that Staff and the Council will be diligent in supervising construction to keep costs down. But, this Project should be viewed as an investment and not just an expense. I remain concerned that certain residents want to keep chipping away at the square footage and amenities until they get to a place where the costs really do outweigh the benefits. There already has been a considerable investment in the process and the construction phase will involve minimum fixed costs and other costs that only can be justified by a park and community center of a certain size and scope. I feel the current concept justifies the likely costs. Thank you! Jim Hevener 2 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Monday, August 19, 2019 4:35 PM Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: Ladera Linda Community Center From: Jonathan D. Haskell <quietfirs@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 4:33 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Kari Kimmel <kari@karikimmel.com> Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center To Whom It May Concern: News of a revamp at Ladera Linda made its way to me, and I felt compelled to take a minute and voice my full and total support for a new and improved community center. As a native of Palos Verdes having grown up in Lunada Bay, I recently moved back to the Eastside of the hill with two kids ages 3 and 9. My 9 year old has played several seasons of A YSO soccer, and they've always practiced at Ladera Linda. Having a park in Palos Verdes that fosters a safe and fun environment for children, not only improves the quality of our lives, but has a large hand in creating memories for our kids that they'll take with them in their own lives. These types of facilities are sadly rare in Palos Verdes, and as it stands today, Ladera Linda is the only place on this side of the hill to offer enough space for kids to run, play and exercise. As tax paying parents living in Palos Verdes, we need more spaces like the one that is currently proposed at Ladera Linda, and whatever voice of support I can show, myself, my wife (copied), and my two kids are 100% on board. Thank you kindly for your time, Jonathan Haskell Mira Catalina Parent, and frequent Ladera Linda attendee 1