20190917 Late CorrespondenceMay-yee-ha
Greetings
Proposal
Sculptural Monument
for
Abalone Cove
Rancho Palos Verdes
Honoring the
Gabrieleño/Tongva Native American Indian
“First Peoples of the Los Angeles Basin”
Presented to the
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Presenter
Mr. Tom Steers
Chairman,
Gabrieleño/Tongva Monument Committee
VISIONARY GOALS:
•To honor the First Inhabitants who lived on this land.
•To have Tongva descendants do all the design and wording for the
monument so that they will be truly honored.
•To inform the public of the Tongva history and the important role
they have played in the history of Southern California.
•To have continuity in theme and design with the other PV Stone-
monuments along RPV’s coastline.
The Tongva have inhabited the L.A. Basin for over 7500 years.
They are recognized by the State of California, Los Angeles
County, the City of Los Angeles and all cities within the County.
They are an active Tribe, and continue to this day
as a vital part of modern society.
Background:
•This proposal is the result of three years of connecting and building
trust with registered Tongva decedents and active tribal members.
•They have been 100% involved with the history, design and vetting
of this monument.
•Consultation with the various historical societies, organizations,
commissions and individuals has greatly assisted the project.
Endorsed by:
San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
Chief Anthony Red Blood Morales
Los Serenos de Point Vincente
Rancho de los Palos Verdes Historical Society
Site at Abalone Cove
Artist’s rendering
Details for the bronze plaques and base
•The large central plaque depicts a traditional Tongva village, the Ki, or
reed home, a young family, as well as fishermen preparing the daily
catch.
•The two side panels tell the story of the Tongva, and our history of the
coastal region known to us as Shwaanga.
•The Donor Plaque lists those who have made this monument
possible.
•The base highest point is 42”, depth is 39”, width is 89”
Preliminary artwork
APPROVED WORDING
Plinth is cast or concrete block, faced with Palos Verdes Stone. The design is ADA compliant,
but this needs to be verified by the RPV City engineers.
Cast bronze plaques are “blind mounted” with stainless steel threaded studs encapsulated
in Quickcrete cement.
There is an optional “step” so children can easily view the sculpture. This is optional as it
might present a liability hazard.
Finances:
•All costs will be covered by donor income.
•Upon RPV City Council approval, the Long Family Foundation’s Board of
Directors has agreed to review and evaluate a grant proposal. If the LFF
Board approves the proposal, they anticipate being a major supporter.
•The costs for all the plinth foundation, construction, and installation of the
plaques will be from donor contributions that will be granted to the
Restricted Donor Fund of the City.
•Three bids/estimates for the base construction cost have been received.
About the artist:
•Geri Jimenez Gould is a professional sculptor,
specializing in bas-relief for medals, coins, awards
and public works.
•Her work is in the Vatican Museum, the Serra
Museum and the Smithsonian Institution, among
others. She has exhibited internationally in the
British Museum, the National Sculpture Society
and the Forest Lawn Museum, among others.
•She is a 7th generation Californian of Mexican-
American and Gabrieleno/Tongva descent.
•Her home and studio is in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
•And, she is an enrolled member of and active in
the Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribe!
CONTR4.CT SERVICES AGREEMENT
By and Beh'\een
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
and
FIRE GRAZERS, INC.
for
Goat Grazing for Fuel :VIodification
:+:" +tm s
h\ \~chMV'l1-j)
AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES
BET,VEE"J THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND
FIRE GRAZERS, INC
THIS FOR CO~\TRACT (herein ·· is made and
September. 19 and bet'ween CITY OF RA~CHO PALOS
VERDES. a municipal corporation FIRE
California corporation c·Consultanf'}. City to. individually or
collectively. as "Party or ··t)arties.
RECITALS
A. Consultant provides fuel modification services by grazing using livestock.
B. Consultant is the sole source provider of fuel modification services by grazing
using livestock.
C. Pursuant to Section 2.44.070(8) of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code. City has authority to enter into and execute this Agreement
D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of
those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that
the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.
OPERt\ TIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by
the Parties and contained herein and other consideration. the value and adequacy of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULT ANT
1.1 Scope of Services.
In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall
provide those services specified in the '·Scope of Services·· attached hereto as Exhibit '·A'" and
incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the '·services" or
·\vorl<" 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 senices required under this Agreement in a thorough. competent, and
professional manner. and is experienced in performing the Vlork 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 \lliill 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 vvork under
similar circumstances.
0 l2U3.UOU6/58l 001.2
l .2 ~nsu!l:ant's ProposaL
shall be
1 Compliance vrith La'!<v.
all services hereunder
in accordance
any FederaL State or
rendered.
statutes. rules. and
jurisdiction in effect at
City and
service JS
1.4 California Labor Lavv.
If the Scope of Services includes any ·'public work'' or .. maintenance \11. ork." 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 follovving 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 \Jvages 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
acknmvledges receipt of a copy of the Department oflndustrial Relations (D IR) 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) Penaltv for Failure to Pav 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 \Vages. The
Consultant shalL as a penalty to the City. forfeit two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar
day. or portion thereof. for each vvorker paid less than the preYailing 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.
2()3 U(Hl6/58 1 Ulr'.2
(d) Pavroll Records. Consultant shall comply be bound by the
provisions of Labor Code Section 1776. which requires Consultant and to:
keep accurate payroll and wrify such records in writing under penalty as
specified in and make such payroll records inspection as
proYided by of the location of the
Apprentices. Consultant shall with and be
of Labor Code .5. 1777.6. and 1777.7 and California Code
Sectwn :.200 ef ccmcernmg the employment ot apprentices on proJects.
Consultant shall be responsible for compliance v1ith these aforementioned Sections for all
apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing vvork under this AgreemenL 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 Dav. Consultant acknovvledges that eight (8) hours labor
constitutes a legal day's V110rk. 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 V\Ork 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 L 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(l Yz) times the basic rate ofpay.
(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 \,vith the provisions of California Labor Code
Section 1861, Consultant certifies as follm~vs:
;;I am aware of the provisions of Section 3 700 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 vvith such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of
this contract." r:J
Consultant's Authorized Initials~_
(i) Consultant's Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor
who will perform vvork under this Agreement. Consultant shall be responsible for such
LS LicensesJ Permits, Fees and Assessments,
Consultant shall at sole cost and expense such licenses. permits approvals
as may be required by la\N for the performance of the services required by this Agreement.
Consultant shall have the obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus
applicable penalties and interest, Yvhich may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary
for the Consultant's per:formance 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 \Vork.
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 \Varrants 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 Otlicer.
L 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 vvork 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.
4
] . 9 Additional Services.
have
or make changes
undertaken unless a
at any time cmnng the performance vvithout
to order extra vvork beyond that specified Services
adding to or deducting from said >-Jo extra\;\, ork may be
order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant,
adJustment in (i) the Contract Sum actual costs of the extra
(ii) to perform this Agreement. -vvhich said are to the
\A.ntten approval ot the Consultant. Any mcrease in compensat10n ot up to ten percent ( l 0%) ot
the Contract Sum or $25.000. vvhichever is less: or. in the time to perform of up to one hundred
eighty ( 180) may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increases. taken either
separately or cumulati·vely. 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 acknovvledges 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 $450,000 (Four Hundred Fifty Thousand 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.
2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.
0 12U3.ClUOh/:'8; UC'.2 5
2.4 Invoices,
Each month furnish to City an original invoice for all performed
and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by s Director of
Finance. By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement Consultant is certifying
compliance with all pro\'isions 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 revievv 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 1\ork performed by Consultant.
ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDl'LE
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 \il.-ithin the time period(s) established in
the .. Schedule of Performance .. attached hereto as Exhibit .. o·· and incorporated herein by this
li! 203 'l006iS81 CJ07 2 6
reference \;\ hen requested
of Performance
one hundred ( 180)
Consultant. exknsions to the tirne period(sJ specified in the
be approved in writing by the Contract Officer but not exceeding
cumulatively.
3.3 .EQ.rce :VIajeure.
The tirne period(s) if!ecl the Schedule of Perfonnance performance of the
sen ices rendered Agreement shall be extended because of clue lo
unforeseeable causes beyond control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant.
including. but not restricted to. acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually sen;re weather,
f1res. earthquakes, tloods. epidemics. quarantine restrictions. riots. strikes. freight embargoes.
wars. litigation, and/or acts of an)c 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 e1·ent shall
Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of
this Agreement however caused. Consultant's sole remedy being extension of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section.
3.4 Term.
Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement
shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding three (3)
years from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance
(Exhibit "D''). The City may. in its sole discretion, extend the Term for two (2) 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
v,ork specified herein and make all decisions in connection there,,vith:
Michael Choi
(Name)
Chief Executive Officer
(Title)
It is expressly understood that the experience. knowledge. capability and reputation of the
foregoing principals \lvere 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
7
performance.
-4.2 Status of ConsuHanL
Consultant shall hm e no to bind m any manner. or to incur igation,
debt or liabilit; of any kind on of or against City, \\ hether by contract or other'.>\ise. unless
such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is othervvise expressly conferred in
Yvriting 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. :'\either Consultant, nor any of Consultant's officers. employees or
agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may
othenvise 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
othenvise 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 \vhich 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 \vith 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 othervvise or a joint venturer or a member of any
joint enterprise with Consultant.
4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.
C; l2:J3.000b/58 1007.2 8
The experience. knoY\
employees '-'Yere a al
Consultant shall not contract
required
capabi reputation of Consultant. its principals and
inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement Therefore.
any other entity to perform in or in part the sen ices
express \\Titten of the
may be transferred. assigned. or
of la1,;,. whether for the benefit
.T
persons acting in concert of more than five percent
of the present ownership and/or control Consultant taking transfers into account on
a cumulati' e basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer. uding any bankruptcy
proceeding. this Agreement shall be Yoid. i'.Jo approved transfer shall release the Consultant or
any surety of Consultant of any liability hereunder \,;,ithout the express consent of
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 beloV·/ and in a form satisfactory to City.
(a) General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01,
in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2.000,000 general aggregate, for bodily
injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that
has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO ·'insured contract'· language
will not be accepted.
(b) Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile
insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury
and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with
Services to be performed under this Agreement including coverage for any owned, hired. non-
owned or rented vehicles. in an amount not less than $1.000.000 combined single limit for each
accident.
(c) Professional liabilitv (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 (vvith limits of at
least $1.000.000).
o 120J.oooo:581 oo; 2 9
as
m Special
5.2 Gene:ral Insurance Requirements.
(a) Insurance to
City as evidence the insurance
endorsement for Vvorkers' compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be
approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certif1cation
of insurance shall be kept on file vvith City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City
reserves the right to require complete. certified copies of all required insurance poiicies, at an:;'
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 Besfs Key Rating Guide, unless othenvise 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 allovv
Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance \\.ith these specifications to
10
e their right
against City. and shall require
subconsultants.
Enfc•rcement
to a loss. Consultant hereby \·Vanes own
vd·itten express \\aivers and insurance clauses
of contract prO\ IsJons (non·-estoppejJ
actual or alleged failure on the part of the
any requirement no additi
(h) Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage or
limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage. lim or other
requirements. or a waiver of 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 \vaiver 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 Consuitant Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits
of insurance and coverage shall be a\ ailable 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 vvith these requirements if they include any limiting
endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in \-YTiting.
(l) Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for
all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the insurer's limits of
liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.
(m) Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants.
subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in
the project by Consultant provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements
required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and revie\v 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) Agencv· s ri2:ht 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 b)
11
(p)
under this Agreement.
liability policies.
arise out or
or may im oh e coverage under
( q) Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain. at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its 0\\'11 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 oHicers, 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 vvill 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 therev,ith:
(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
v,ith 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
12
employees in such action or including but not limited to. costs and
indemnity agreements \VIth
it to indemnify
these prO\isions shall not be a
arising from any negligent or
or the
sen ices hereundeL this Section do not apply to claims or l'
as a result of s sole negligence or willful acts or omissions. but to the
permit1ed by . shall apply to and liabilities resulting in part frmn City's negli
except that design professionals' indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and
arising out of the negligence. recklessness or \\illful misconduct of the design professionaL The
indemnity· obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall sun·ive
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 \·Vill 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
n 1 _2(;.3. ~J006:S8 l 0U7 .: 1"' ' .)
thereto and. 1f
Owrrunship of Qocuments.
JS
project being
to City
Officer or Agreement. Consultant
compensation as a of the exercise
rights o-vvnership use. reuse .. or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder.
use. reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use
uncompleted documents 'vvithout specific \\Titten authorization by the Consultant will be at the
City"s sole risk and v,:ithout liability to Consultant, and Consultant's guarantee and vvarranties
shall not extend to such use. reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of
documents for its o1vn use. Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein.
All subcontractors shail 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. :'v1oreover, Consultant with respect to any documents
and materials that may qualify as '·\vorks 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 ofthis 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 noL
vvithout 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 gh es 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 \·iolation 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
14
performed there
present at any
\\ith City
right, but has no obligation. to represent or be
hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully
opportunity to revievv response to discovery
to revie\V any not or mean
or n;;'lc\Tite said response.
ARTICLE 7. E:\IFORCE:VIE;\IT OF AGREEMEXT AND TERMINATION
7.1 California L~n'L
This Agreernent shall be construed and governed both as to validity and to
performance of the parties in accordance \\ith the lav,s of the State of California. Legal actions
concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement 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 e\ent of litigation in a U.S. District
Court, venue shall lie exclusive!~ 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 vvork 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 thi1iy (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 v,:hich are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or
damages suffered by City. and (ii) all amounts for \Vhich 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 \Vhich shall appear
to be the basis for a claim of lien. City may vvithhold 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 v,ithhold shall not. however. affect the obligations of
the Consultant to insure. indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.
Cl12U3 t)006')8J()07 2 15
impair such right or remedy
must be and shall not be a v,
7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.
Except \"vith 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 $0 (Zero Dollars) as liquidated damages for each vvorking day of delay in the
performance of any service required hereunder. The City may \'vithhold from any monies payable
on account 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 reseryes the right to terminate this
Contract at any time. with or without cause. upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Consultant,
except that \'.'here 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 Vl,here termination is due to the fault of the City. the
period of notice may be such shorter time as the Consultant may determine. Upon receipt of any
16
termination. Consultant I immediately cease all seiTices hereunder
be specifically Contract Officer. Except where the
to compensation for all services rendered prior to the
and for any services authorized Contract
thereafter in accordance of Compensation or as ma:-be apprm ed
Section 7.3. In the eYent the Consultant
product actually produced
this Section.. the terminating party
opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.
to compensation only for reasonable
In the event termination without cause pursuant to
not provide the non-terminating party \\'ith
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 \vith the provisions of Section 7.2. take over the work
and prosecute the same to completion by contract or othenvise. 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 \\·ithhold 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 Emplovees.
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 vvould in any vvay hinder Consultant's performance of services under this
Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement no person
'7 l'
agent or
Consultant
or indirectlY. interested. in violation
it has not paid or giYen and
8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination.
Consultant em enants that. by and 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 ongm. ancestry or other
protected class.
8.4 Unauthorized Aliens.
Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all ofthe provisions ofthe 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
:\llanager and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawihorne 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 Agree1nent. 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-tYvo (72) hours from the time ofmailing if mailed as proYided in this Section.
18
9.2 lntcrpretaHo!!:.
construed in accordance with
or against either party b) reason
app1:
9.3 Counterparts.
This Agreement executed in counterparts, each ofvvhich shall be deemed to be an
and such counterparts one the same instrument.
9.4 Integration; Amendme:nL
This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire. complete and exclusiYe
expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements
betvveen the parties hereto atTecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels
any and all previous negotiations. arrangements. agreements and understandings. if an). 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 \.VTiting 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 \Yaiver shail 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 \oiith 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)heiit has not engaged in any act(s}.
omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that \vould result in the payment of any money.
consideration. or other thing of\ alue to any third party including. but not limited to. any City
0 l 203 0(J06/58l! lU7 2 19
vvarrant
such is
provisions of this Agreement (iY) that entering into this Agreement does not
violate am provision of any other Agreement to ,~~,-hich said party is bound. This Agreement shall
be binding upon the heirs. executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties.
[SIGNATlJRES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
IN WIT~ESS WHEHEOF. the executed
the and first -above
ATTEST:
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
CITV:
JerrY V Mayor
CONSULTANT:
S. INC .. a California corporation
By:~=zl~""-----------
Na e: ichael Choi
Title: 1 Chief Executive QJfi,cer ,
By:~/~
1\iame: Aaron Choi
Title: Secretary
Address: 4107 rriangle Road
Mariposa. California 95338
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required
from each of the following groups: l) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2)
Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CO"'SUL TANT'S
SIG"lA TURES SHALL BE DULY NOT ARIZ ED, AND APPROPRlA TE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE
I"lCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR
OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSL:LTANT'S BUSI:'-IESS ENTITY.
Ul2U3.U006/~X1U07 2
on
CALIFORNIA ALL-Pl;RPOSE ACK~(Y\VLEDGMENT
,-------------------------·-------------------------------· . -------·--[
i L\ nnt'F\ ir· nr o~'~1er officnr :his c~rti+'ierpn \•eritles 'lt''iw individ11ai who ~··~~C;" '-.-U ,,\,.. ~'-' \o....L.,.,...~l'••· . .._d...-'-• '-'''. j
! the docuJncnt to \'i·hich this certific~:tte is attach::cL and !1('11 accurac) or val of thal docu1nenL
[ ____________ _
-----···---------------------------. -------------
STATE OF CALlFOR".;lA.
COL'\iTY OF LOS i\NGELES
-I
On _s'&(J _!_]__, 2019 before me.{}/!fr.,_{ IJ,Q.-i:.'~_,J _(~~~ _. to me on
the ~-;f satisfactory ev'idence to be the person( s) \\:hose na1nes(s) is ·are subscribed to the vvithin instrun1ent and
to me that he. she executed the same in his/her-their aur:10rized capacity(ies). and that
his her their signature(s) on the instrument the or the entity upon behalf of \vhich the person(s) acted.
, executed the instrument
l certify under PE'\IAL TY OF PERjURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
; true and correct.
WlT'\iESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: _.u.-k~{;;r_j fflfttl4)
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 SIG:"'ER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT ' I
D e INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
' lr-----
_t_{J/j//r-/1--t.-T }k-ri/;oE #({.K"ff!W/~
~
D n
D
D n '---'
TlTLE(S)
PARTNER(S) 0 LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY -IN-FACT
TRGSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN CONSERVATOR
OTHER
~~------···----·---
SIGYER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENT!TY(!ES))
--r:;;r-z--r;:;«;;r;_Ktf/ ('_l?_c_·· _____________ _
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT I
21
NUMBER OF PAGES
__ Ul-/,;J;t
DATE OF DOCUMENT
·-"--/)1----'Jc~:0-~~~/-'--. ~l!!_lcP~~ 1
______ _
SIGNER(S) OTHER THA'\1 NAMED ABOVE
CALIFORNIA ALL-PFRPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
--------------· ---------l
A. notary public or other officer this certificare \~erifies onl;. the ofrhe individuui \\ho I
the documem to which this cel"lificate is atrachcd. and nor the truthfulness. accmac; or validlt) oF that docutTtet1t.
L-~----·-·
------------------·--,
• COL\ITY Of LOS i\\!GELES
t , (. I . Ji A') ., -~-1 1? '
• On 5f'('--~]__. 2019 before me. pUI/11~ ~~fll'-t{_h~r!t'J,fferSonaily appeared lfJ'tflrfti C!toi . proved to me on
! the bass of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is 1are subscribed to the within instrument and
to me that he she executed the same in his henheir authorized capacity( and that b)
his 'her'their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s ). or ::he upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
l certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
; true and correct.
I WIT'\JESS mv hand and official seal.
Signature: IJ/Jrj /J;/v~MI /!rf}!l:(h_/j____ ____ _
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
! prevent fi·audulent reattachment of this form
~
D n
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 REPRESENTI;\IG:
, (NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
. /+ ,C 6-{j !?tr2 __ r£=K-"5'-----f----'J_,.=-.--FI-=-
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
/!o.~nv~ SMt!M' k~Ri£"fj i
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
-------------------------
NU\1BER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SlGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
L
Consultant
services
agreed upon fire
grazmg season.
EXHIBff "'A"
SERVICES
labor,
as modification
m accordance '"' ith the specifications and
grazing plan. which shall be developed annually
mutually
to the
H. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible
·work products to the City:
;\JOT APPLICABLE
IlL In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2, during performance of the Services~
Consultant will keep the City appraised of the status of performance by delivering
the following status reports:
A. Consultant shall provide an act1v1ty report to the Contract Officer for each
requested fire grazing site indicating the number of livestock used, the location on
which fire grazing was performed, start time, finish time, number and names of
people working, and the date.
IV. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be
revised by the Consultant without additional charge to the City until found
satisfactory and accepted by City.
V. Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services:
A. Michael Choi
B. Aaron Choi
C. Joseph Choi
EXHIBIT "B"
SPECIAL REQUIREME~TS
Boilerplate i
Added tcxt is indicated in bold text is indicated in st-Rl-cethrough.
I. The first paragraph of Section 2. -t, hnoi<C:e~, is hereby amended to read as follow~:
Each month Consultant shall furni to C an original invoice for all \York performed
and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form appro\ ed by City's Director of
Finance and/or Director of Public Works. By submitting an invoice for payment under this
Agreement Consultant is certifying compliance \ll'ith all provisions of the Agreement. The
invoice shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the following categories:
labor (by subcategory), 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.
II. Subsection (c), Professionalliabilit}' (errors & omissions) insurance, of Section 5. 1,
Insurance Coverages, is deleted in its entirety.
Ill. Section 7.7, Liquidated Damages, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Since the determination of actual damages for any delay in performance of this
Agreement \Vould be extremely difficult or impractical to determine in the event of a breach of
this /\greement the Consaltant and its sureties shall be liable for and shall pay to the City the
sum of $0 (Zero 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 accmed liquida:ed damages.
Complaints can be generated by third parties or directly by City inspection. The
Contract Officer may issue an oral warning, or if warnings are not effective, the Contract
Officer may issue a Corrective Action Request ("CAR'') to the Contractor. In addition to
issuing the CAR, the Contract Officer may assess liquidated damages against the Contractor.
CARs shall be classified in the following categories:
(a) Levell: A minor non-systemic non-compliance with the Agreement. Level I CARs can
typically be corrected on the spot or within 24 hours. Failure of the Contractor to resolve Level
I CARs within 24 hours of notification, unless otherwise specified by the Contract Officer,
may result in an escalation to Levell/ status.
(b) Level 11: A serious systemic non-compliance with the Agreement or a repeated non-
compliance with the Agreement. Level II C4Rs shall result in liquidated damages in the
amount of $125 (One Hundred n~·enty Five Dollars) per day the Contractor does not comp~v
with the Agreement. Failure of the Contractor to resolve Level ll CARs within two (2) days of
B-1
.nwy an
(d) Cure Notice: egregious mm-the Agreement or a repeated
non-compliance which has previously been classified as a Level Ill CAR. Cure /'<latices shall
result in liquidated damages in the amount of $500 (Five Hundred Dollars) per day the
Contractor does not comp(r with the Agreernent. Cure Notices require the complete and
inunediate attention of the Contractor. Failure of the Contractor to resolve the Cure lVotice
within fifteen (1 5) da:vs of not(fication, or such period as the Contract Officer shalf prescribe,
may result in suspension or termination of the Agreement.
Nothing herein shall be construed as limiting City's right to terminate the Agreement for
default by Contractor or otherwise limit the City's enforcement rights or remedies the
Agreement. Furthermore, nothing herein shall be construed as requiring City to impose
liquidated damages prior to terminating or taking other action.
B-2
L
EXHIBIT ''C'
SCHEDt:LE OF COVIPENSATION
Consultant shaH perform by Grazing at the foHo't'rtng rates:
· Fuel I
. Mod 'Three Year ;
, Zone , Area Description : Acreage : Annua! Cost ' Cost
9 I Point Vicente Interpretive Center i 2.487613 · $3 1120 : $9,3601
i by 9 : Point Vicente Interpretive -C-e-nt_e_r-----+--T-B-D-~----'-$-6_8_5_0~.--·-$-2-0-55--o--ll
I I
I 38 i Three Sisters Reserve . 0.175977 ; $2,375 ! $7,125
39 i Three Sisters Reserve
----
I 1.593906 i $21567 I $7,701
41 : Abalone Cove Shoreline Park I 0.462147 : $31200 i $9,600 1
I 34 : Filiorum Reserve I 3 I $1,320 ! $3,960 -;I 0. 20239 i [-------------1 . !
$2,588 : $7,764 ! Filiorum Reserve
I
I
!
'
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
'· i
i
I
'
'
'
i
35 0.59476 ! -
36 i Portuguese Bend Reserve : 0.520518 ! $3,200 i $9,600
25 I Forrestal Nature Reserve I 4.06482 ! $3,740 1 $11,220
26 I Forrestal Nature Reserve I 0.201732 : $41210 i $12,630
10 I Alta Vicente Reserve 11.750628 i S4,69o 1 $14,070
11 i Alta Vicente Reserve ! 1.on335 1 $4,050 i $12,150 -+
$990! 15 i Vista Del Norte Reserve : 0.080294 1 $2,970
16 I Vista Del Norte Reserve I o.828398 $990 $2,970
40 I Filiorum Reserve t_B.25178 $18,200 $54,600
33 I Filiorum Reserve I 2.752919 I $6,080 $18,240
43 I Filiorum Reserve (Del cerro Park) ! 1.629604 I $4,100 $12,300
27 i
1
Forrestal Nature Reserve I 1.482384 [ $4,360 1 $13,080
19 i San Ramone Reserve 1 o.629049 1 $1A32 I $4,296
i San Ramone Reserve
I I
$1,432 1 $4,296 20 I 0.327673 !
! 0.356834 i $1,432 I $4,296 21 i San Ramone Reserve
I
18 ' Ocean Trails Reserve I 3.000155 :, $5,800 ! $17,400
5 : Aqua Armaga Canyon ; 1.114245 i
I $4,350 ! $13,050
6 , Aqua Armaga Canyon • 4.694564 ! $11,306 ! $33,918
8 : Aqua Armaga Canyon 1.362476 i $3,126 : $9,378
TBD '. Sites To Be Determined
I
TBD $20,000 * 1
, $60,000 *
TBD , Revisiting sites due to regrowth
' TBD i $24,492 ** ! $73,476 **
$150,000 $450,000
* $20,000 is budgeted for additional sites determined necessary for Fuel Modification.
This \~ill be billed at a rate of $1.3 50iacre plus $1.100 transportation cost per individual
site.
C-1
HL Within the budgeted amounts
Officer, funds may be shifted
Contract Sum is not exceeded
app:roYed per Section 1.9.
and vdth the approval of the Contract
one Task subbudget to another so long as the
per 2.1, unless Additional Ser·dces are
IV. The City wm compensate Consultant the Sen·ices performed upon subn1ission of
a vaHd invoice. Each invoice is to include:
Line iten1s for each location serviced and completed '"'eekly reports.
V. The total compensation for the Services shaH not exceed $450,000, as provided in
Section 2.1 of this Agreement, and the annual amount shall not exceed $150,000.
VI. The Consultant's billing rates for all personnel are attached as Exhibit C-1. NOT
APPLICABLE
C-2
EXHIBIT "D"
SCHEDLLE OF PER'FOR:YIANCE
L t'nless earlier terminated in accordance vdth Article 7 of this Agreement, the tea·m
ofthis Agreement shall be September ]7, 2019 to September 17,2011. The term
this Agreement may be to hn} years, by exercising up to two ear
options, based on Contractor performance and mutual consent
IL Consultant shaH perform aH senices timely in accordance vdth the following
antidpated schedule in "Exhibit D-1" ofthis Agn:ement.
HL Consultant shall deliver activit} reports in accordance with Exhibit "A", Section HI
of this Agreement.
IV. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the se•--vices in
accordance ~'ith Section 3.2.
D-1
,---·-------·
'Mod '
Zone • Area Description 2022
by 9 : Pomt Vicente interpretive Center March/ April
2021*
Ma
2022* ----+--~-·------1--------
1 4/6-4/7 . Aprll 2021 * April 2022*
--+-----'--·-------·--··+···----+---'------1
4/8 April 2021 * April 2022*
--------~---·-----+----------+----'------
9 Point Vicente Interpretive
I
38 j Three Sisters Reserve
-----
39 ! Three Sisters Reserve 4/9-4/10 April 2021 * April 2022*
I Abalone Cove Shoreline Park 4/11 April 2021 * ~-~----+-~---
4/12 April 2021 *
April 2022* 41
34 ' Filiorum Reserve April 2022*
35 [ Filiorum Reserve 4/13 , April 2021 * April 2022*
36 i Portuguese Bend Reserve ; 4/14 ! April 2021 *----1-: -A-p'-r-i-1 2_0_2_2_*--1
----+----""-------------+-! -----'--~----j---'-------_,__ _ _,__ ___ -----1
25 ! Forrestal Nature Reserve ' 4/15-4/18 : April 2021 * i April 2022*
-+----~--------<----'------1
26 Forrestal Nature Reserve I 4/19 April 2021 * I April 2022*
I April 2021 * I
I April 2021 *
15 ! Vista Del Norte Reserve ! 4/24 ! April 2022* April 2021 *
I April 2021 * I
i 40
I
I March/ April
i 2021*
/ Filiorum Reserve
1
1 3/29-4/10 I March/April
I I 2022*
I 33 I Filiorum Reserve 4/11-4/13 I April 2021 * I April 2022*
43 i Filiorum Reserve (Del Cerro Park) 4/14-4/15 I April 2021 * I April 2022*
~---+-------'---------'-~-~--------+,---'-------1
I 27 i Forrestal Nature Reserve I 4/}6 --=-~l~Z ____ !__ __ Ap_~il 202_1_*_--+-: _A--=---p_ri_l 2_0_2_2_*_---l
! San Ramone Reserve i 4/18 April 2021 * I April 2022* 19
20
r----
i 21 :
18
--ji_S_a_n_R_am_o_n_e_R_e_s_e_rv_e _____ ~---4'-/1_9 __ --+--A--'-p_ri_l _20_2_1_*_--l-[ __ A..:..p_r_il_2_0_2_2_*---i
i San Ramone Reserve 1 4/20 April 2021 * I April 2022*
i Ocean Trails Reserve : 4/21-4/23 April 2021 * : April 2022*
5 ! Aqua Armaga Canyon 4/24 April 2021 * April 2022*
6
8
I Aqua Armaga Canyon 4/25 April 2021 * April 2022* --'------+-
: Aqua Armaga Canyon 4/26 April 2021 * April 2022*
TBD ' Sites To Be Determined TBD TBD TBD
TBD 1 Revisiting sites due to regrowth TBD TBD TBD
'-----
* Approximate dates are tentative only and subject to change dependent on the grazing season
D-1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
SEPTEMBER 17, 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.
B
1
3
Description of Material
Correction of minor grammatical errors to draft Minutes for August
6, 2019 and September 3, 2019
Emails from Kathy Snell
Amendment E (Agreement with Hardy & Harper, Inc.); Emails from:
Kathy Snell; AI and Barbara Sattler; Roger Hawkins; Jessica Leeds
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, September 16, 2019**.
Respectfully submitted,
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\20190917 additions revisions to agenda.docx
DRAFT
MINUTES
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 6, 2019
CALL TO ORDER:
A Regular meeting of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council was called to order by
Mayor Pro Tem Cruikshank at 7:10 P.M. at Fred Hesse Community Park, McTaggart
Hall, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.
City Council roll call was answered as follows:
PRESENT: Brooks, Dyda, and Mayor Pro Tem Cruikshank
ABSENT: Alegria and Mayor Duhovic
Also present were Doug Willmore, City Manager; Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager;
William W. Wynder, City Attorney; Deborah Cullen, Director of Finance; Ara Mihranian,
Director of Community Development; So Kim, Deputy Director of Community Development;
Elias Sassoon, Director of Public Works; Cory Linder, Director of Recreation and Parks;
Teresa Takaoka, Deputy City Clerk; and Emily Colborn, City Clerk.
Also present was Lt. Michael White, Lomita Station, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
Department.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilwoman Brooks.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT:
None.
MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Councilwoman Brooks announced that the Admiral Risty restaurant will close after 52
years on August 17. Councilwoman Brooks commended the restaurant for being the
go-to restaurant for life's special celebrations in and around the Palos Verdes Peninsula
and expressed farewell wishes.
RECYCLE AND EMERGENCY PERSONAL PREPAREDNESS KIT DRAWING:
Mayor Duhovic Pro Tem Cruikshank announced the Recycle Winners for the July 16,
2019, City Council meeting: L.G. Stange and Henry De Cambra. He indicated that all
winners receive a check for $250 and urged everyone to participate in the City’s
Recycling Program. He noted that in addition to winning the Recycler Drawing, the two
B
DRAFT - City Council Minutes
September 3, 2019
Page 6 of 9
2. Consideration and possible action to approve a proposal from the Palos
Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy for a grant of up to $200,000 for fuel load
reduction in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
City Clerk Colborn reported that late correspondence was received and distributed prior
to the meeting and there were requests to speak.
James O’Neill, Assistant Engineer, presented a brief staff report and introduced
Adrienne Mohan, Executive Director, Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, who
reported on the fuel load reduction grant.
The following members of the public addressed the City Council: Mickey Rodich, Bob
Nelson, Susan Wilcox, and Carolynn Petru.
Discussion ensued among Council Members and Staff.
Councilwoman Brooks moved, seconded by Councilman Alegria, to (1) Receive and file
the presentation from the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy; (2) Approve a
grant of up to $200,000 for fuel load reduction in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve; and
(3) Authorize an additional appropriation of $200,000 for the requested grant.
Mayor Duhovic offered a friendly amendment to pursue Southern California Edison for
potential funding to assist with costs related to this item.
Mayor Pro Tem Cruikshank offered a friendly amendment to allow Conservancy to
return with recommended additions to the scope of work for this project. pursue
Southern California Edison for participation in the project.
The maker and seconder of the motion accepted the amendments.
The motion, as amended, is as follows: Councilwoman Brooks moved, seconded by
Councilman Alegria, to (1) Receive and file the presentation from the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy; (2) Approve a grant of up to $200,000 for fuel load
reduction in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve; (3) Authorize an additional appropriation
of $200,000 for the requested grant; (4) Directed staff to pursue Southern California
Edison for potential funding to assist with costs related to this item; and (5) Allow for the
Conservancy to return with recommended additions to the scope of work for this project
if necessary.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alegria, Brooks, Cruikshank, Dyda, and Mayor Duhovic
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
B
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kathy < ksnell0001 @aol.com >
Tuesday, September 17, 2019 4:06 AM
cc
CityCierk; Octavia Silva; ksnell0001 @aol.com
Public Hearing: 1. EIR The Zone 2 map needs to be corrected or the EIR is incomplete.
Dr Elig first presented his Zone map to the Panel of Geologists and Charlie Abbott for the plan to build over 500 new
homes under RDA. Zone 1 was not to include any existing homes. Dr Elig used an outdated Assessors map that did
not show the subdivided properties on Vanderlip and parts ofNarcissa. Dr Elig accidentally showed 100 Vanderlip,
75, 79 & 83 Narcissa within Zone 1 on the Zone map. During all of Dr Elig's RDA and sewer presentations, he
repeatedly commented that only those unsubdivided parcel not built on were in Zone 1.
Reference Dr Elig's description of Zone 2. "Zone 2 includes about 130 acres within existing Tract 14195 and Tract
14500 (except lots 1~ 2, 3 and 4 which are in the Portuguese Bend landslide), and the subdivided land served by
Vanderlip Drive ... "
The Zone 2 map needs to be corrected to include 75, 79 & 83 Narcissa and 100 Vanderlip, or the EIR is incomplete.
Regards,
Kathy Snell
8 Vanderlip Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
Sent from my iPhone
1 I
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kathy <ksnell0001 @aol.com>
Tuesday, September 17, 2019 7:48 AM
cc
Octavia Silva; CityCierk; ksnell0001 @aol.com
Public Hearing EIR Zone 2
It all goes back to lot splits. I believe the State of California will mandate housing before the city allows lot
splits. What the State mandates will be unbelievable. The City can allow Zone 2 to have lot splits making the
State's mandate unnecessary.
Is it true that the City's and Staff's position is to not allow lot splits so those parcels within 500 feet of the Preserve
can be controlled like the Preserve under NCCP?
Isn't the denial of lot splits contrary to "best use" of property as the NCCP calls for?
I bought my four acres 45 years ago with the intent of splitting into one acre parcels. In about 1985, the right to split
was suspended on a "temporary basis." Mr. Monk said he would be dead before he was allowed to build. Jack
Downhill always felt that he would be able to build before he died. Kathy Snell thinks it could be rigged after 40
years of watching property rights being lost.
My four acres are more stable than all of the Monk properties that are allowed to be built on. Please let me know why
the City is not allowing lot splits.
Respectfully,
Kathy Snell
8 Vanderlip Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
1 I
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mr. Dyda,
Kathy < ksnell0001 @aol.com >
Tuesday, September 17, 2019 9:28AM
Ken Dyda
CityCierk; Octavia Silva; ksnell0001 @aol.com
EIR Public Hearing Zone 2. No lot split.
I understand that you came up with the benefit formula for Abalone Cove Abatement District. For those who have been
assessed one unit per acre for future benefit use of undeveloped land, why have you not voted to allow lot splits in Zone 2?
If one can't use their property for 40 years but has paid the "benefit" formula annually, is it time to change the formula or
allow a lot split?
Respectfully,
Kathy Snell
8 Vanderlip Driveway
Rancho Palos Verdes
1 I
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTUAL
SERVICES ("Amendment No. 2") by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
a California municipal corporation ("City") and HARDY & HARPER, INC., a California
corporation ("Contractor") is effective as of the 17th day of September, 2019.
RECITALS
A. City and Contractor entered into that certain Agreement for Contractual Services
dated June 19, 2018 ("Agreement") whereby Contractor agreed to provide support for City special
events and right-of way-maintenance services (the "Services") until June 19, 2023, for a Contract
Sum of$1,497,600.
B. City and Contractor entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement dated July
16, 2019 pursuant to Section 1.9 of the Agreement to increase the Contract Sum by $25,000 in
order to fund additional work scarifying a specific road in the City.
C. City and Contractor now desire to further amend the Agreement pursuant to Section
1.9 of the Agreement to increase the Contract Sum by an additional $40,000 in order to fund further
additional work to repair two trails that accommodate vehicular access in the City, commonly
known as Peppertree Trail and Water Tank Trail.
TERMS
1. Contract Changes. The Agreement is amended as provided herein. Deleted text is
indicated in strikethrough and added text in bold italics.
a. Section 2.1, Contract Sum, is hereby amended to read:
01203.0006/597885.1
"2.1. Contract Sum. Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement,
City agrees to pay Contractor 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 $1,562,600 (One Million Five Hundred Sixty-
Two Thousand Six Hundred Dollars) $1,522,600 (One 1\4:illion Five
Hundred Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($1,522,600)
over the Term of the Agreement (the "Contract Sum"), and shall not exceed
$364,250 (Three Hundred Sixty-Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty
Dollars) $324,250 (Three Hundred Twenty Four Thousand Tv.'o Hundred
Fifty Dollars) in FY2019-2020 and shall not exceed Two Hundred Ninety
Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Dollars ($299,250) annually for all other
fiscal years, unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section
1.9."
-1-E-1 3.
b. Section I of Exhibit "A", Scope of Services, is hereby amended to read:
"I. Contractor will perform the following Services:
A. Contractor shall furnish all labor, vehicles, equipment, tools,
services and special skills required for one maintenance crew which shall
consist of one lead worker who is able to read, write, and speak English,
and one laborer and a fully equipped stake bed truck having an attached
arrow board or the ability to tow an arrow board trailer. The crew may at
times be split into two one-person crews and manage multiple assignments
throughout the work day. Contractor duties are to render and provide all-
inclusive labor, vehicles, tools, and equipment, services for city
programmed events and right of way landscape maintenance, including, but
not limited to: Special event setup, moving furniture, stacking copy paper,
moving boxes, janitorial work, placing a speed trailer on designated streets,
filling and placing sand bags, litter pick up, weed abatement, sweeping or
blowing down, vehicle porter service, clear right of way during storms,
minor tree lifting to clear traffic signs and traffic signals, remove illegally
dumped debris from right of way, remove graffiti, bus stop shelter
maintenance, city council and planning commission meeting set up,
opening and closing gates, placing temporary barricades, cones, and
delineators, as well as other assignments at the discretion of the
maintenance superintendent.
B. Contractor shall provide all labor, vehicles, equipment, tools,
services, and special skills required to scarify Burma Rd. from near
intersection with Fire Station Trail to the entry into Rolling Hills above Bam
Owl Trail."
C. Contractor shall provide all labor, vehicles, equipment, tools,
services, and special skills required to fill erosion trenches, scarify and
compact Peppertree Trail and Water Tank Trail.
c. Section I of Exhibit "D", Schedule of Performance, is hereby amended to read:
01203.0006/597885.1
"I. Contractor shall perform the Services according to the following
schedule
A. Contractor Contract shall be at the City three days out of every week, as
determined by the Contract Officer. Contractor will perform all Services timely as
requested by the Contract Officer.
B. Contractor will commence work on the scarification of Burma Road before
August 1, 2019, and complete the scarification within five weeks of the
commencement of work.
C. Contractor will commence work on filling erosion trenches, scarification
and compaction of Peppertree Trail and Water Tank Trail before October 1,
-2-E-2
2019, and complete filling erosion trenches, scarification and compaction within
6 weeks of the commencement of work."
2. Continuing Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by Amendment Nos. 1 and
2, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. From and
after the date of this Amendment No.2, whenever the term "Agreement" appears in the Agreement,
it shall mean the Agreement, as amended by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to the Agreement.
3. Affirmation of Agreement; Warranty Re Absence of Defaults. City and
Contractor each ratify and reaffirm each and every one of the respective rights and obligations
arising under the Agreement. Each party represents and warrants to the other that there have been
no written or oral modifications to the Agreement other than as provided herein. Each party
represents and warrants to the other that the Agreement is currently an effective, valid, and binding
obligation.
Contractor represents and warrants to City that, as of the date of this Amendment No. 2,
City is not in default of any material term of the Agreement and that there have been no events
that, with the passing of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a material default
under the Agreement.
City represents and warrants to Contractor that, as of the date of this Amendment No. 2,
Contractor is not in default of any material term of the Agreement and that there have been no
events that, with the passing of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a material
default under the Agreement.
4. Adequate Consideration. The parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that
they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the
obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment No. 2.
5. Authority. The persons executing this Amendment No.2 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 Amendment No. 2 on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this
Amendment No.2, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Amendment No.2, and
(iv) the entering into this Amendment No. 2 does not violate any provision of any other agreement
to which said party is bound.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
0 1203.0006/597885.1 -3-E-3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No.2 to
the 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
CONTRACTOR:
HARDY & HARPER, INC., a California
corporation
By:
By:
Name: Steven Kirschner
Title: Vice President
Name: Kristen S. Paulino
Title: Secretary
Address: 1312 East Warner Ave.
Santa Ana, CA 92075
Two corporate officer signatures required when Contractor 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. CONTRACTOR'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 CONTRACTOR'S BUSINESS ENTITY.
01203.0006/597885.1 -4-E-4
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On , 2019 before me, , personally appeared , proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true
and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: _______________ _
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
D INDIVIDUAL
0 CORPORATE OFFICER
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) D
D
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
LIMITED
GENERAL
D
D
D
D
D
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER~---------------------
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
01203.0006/597885.1
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 LOS ANGELES
On , 2019 before me, , personally appeared , proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true
and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: _______________ _
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAP A CITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
D INDIVIDUAL
0 CORPORATE OFFICER
TITLE(S)
p ARTNER(S) D
D
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
LIMITED
GENERAL
D
D
D
D
D
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER~---------------------
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
01203.0006/597885.1
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kathy <ksnell0001 @aol.com>
Tuesday, September 17, 2019 7:45 AM
cc
CityCierk; Octavia Silva; ksnell0001 @aol.com
Regular Business 1. City's fuel modification to eradicate acacia
With the needed removal of Acacia on the side of Vanderlip Driveway, an attractive nuisance will be created. Hikers,
bikers, horseback riders and coyotes will make an access trail on a short, steep slope onto Vanderlip Driveway at the
blind curve.
Once the area is newly opened, it will immediately need a 6' high temporary chain link fence strung along the
existing posts to properly block trail users. This will also allow the native bushes to fill in the empty area left by the
removal of Acacia.
The cut logs the Conservancy uses is not adequate for this situation. My car was almost hit by a young rider on
horseback who came out of the brushes at the bottom of Vanderlip Driveway. There was no horse trail where she
came from. At least that area is not on a hill so the rider was able to stop her horse from entering the narrow
driveway.
Please ensure the Conservancy puts up a connecting 6' temporary fence.
Regards,
Kathy Snell
8 Vanderlip Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 12, 2019, at 12:22 PM, Kathy <ksnell0001@aol.com> wrote:
Cris Sarabia,
For immediate safety sake, I am requesting that your workers string up 6' high chain link fencing on
the posts which are there now after cutting out the acacia.
There are homeless living in the Preserve directly uphill and many coyotes that will forge a new trail
through the trimmed area thus disrupting the native habitat that will be uncovered.
I can buy you chain link fencing if you don't have any.
Thank you for your attention.
Kathy Snell
3
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, September 17, 2019 8:19AM
CityCierk
FW: comments re Fuel Modification proposals for 9-17-19 City Council Meeting
Comments re Fuel Mod proposals for 9-17 -19.pdf
From: Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 12:16 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon
<esassoon@ rpvca .gov>
Cc: Mary Beth Woulfe <marybeth_woulfe@fws.gov>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; Allen Franz
<afranz@PacBell.net>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; AI <alsattler@igc.org>
Subject: comments reFuel Modification proposals for 9-17-19 City Council Meeting
Dear City Council and City Staff,
Attached are our comments for the September 17, 2019 City Council meeting regarding Fuel Modification in the city.
We apologize for this communication being so late.
AI & Barbara Sattler
1
September 16, 2019
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Staff
via email
Re: Fuel Modification Proposals for September 17, 2019 City Council Meeting
Dear Mayor Duhovic, City Council and City Staff,
Thank you for this opportunity to address the ongoing development of a revised Fuel Modification Plan for the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
We appreciate Staff's efforts to update the Fuel Modification mapping to show both the 30 foot and 200 foot
footprints. We request that the updated map be made available for public review at a readable scale and that
the impacts to habitat from the additions to the Fuel Modification areas be calculated and updated in the NCCP
and also be made available to the public.
We are concerned that many elements included in this current Fuel Modification proposal are too broad-
ranging and vague and are missing important details regarding scope of work, description of work criteria, and
scope of responsibility.
We are also deeply concerned that some of the proposed options in the staff report seem to suggest an intent
to undermine the role of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLCL which is defined by the
contractural agreement between the City and the PVPLC in the NCCP.
Our concerns are as follows:
Questions regarding the City's overall proposed methodology and strategy
The city needs to fully define the methodology, criteria, and standards that will be used for Fuel Modification.
• Will there be a distinction made between methods used in Zone 1 vs. Zone 2?
• To what extent will vegetation be removed or modified? What methods does the city intend to use?
• Will there be a Landscape Plan that clearly identifies which plants should be preserved and protected
and which should be removed?
• Will the work be directed and supervised by a qualified biologist?
• How will the buffer zones be maintained? A maintenance budget should be established.
City Staffing
It is understandable that city staff may feel overburdened and overwhelmed by needing to address Fuel
Modification issues for the entirety of the city owned properties. This is an enormous amount of acreage with a
complex range of vegetation communities, slope, exposure, weather patterns, etc. Seasonal timing is also an
important factor in any projects related to natural communities and the city needs someone on staff who truly
understands all of these factors.
We do not agree with staff's proposal that a short term consultant should be contracted to focus on the issues
of a Fuel Modification plan. Instead, we suggest that the city create a new staff position to be filled by someone
who not only can work to address the requirements of various agencies regarding Fuel Modification, but who
has a biological background and expertise and can also provide the city with the understanding and guidance
that it needs in initiating and addressing projects that may impact habitat in the Preserve. This is not to suggest
that such a staff person should in any way replace consultations with the PVPLC or the Resource Agencies, but
the city needs a staff person who is trained in natural land management including biology and ecology just as
much as the city needs its urban planners and engineers. That training and background is not only needed in
planning for Fuel Modification, it is equally an issue in relationship to the Landslide Mitigation efforts the city is
proposing and to public use and recreation issues that may potentially impact the Preserve.
Should the city opt to consider creating such a position, we request that the job description and qualifications
go to the City Council for public review.
Working with the LA County Fire Department and the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner (LA
County Agencies)
We hope that the city is deeply engaged in dialogue with the Resource Agencies, the PVPLC, and the LA County
Agencies regarding optimal approaches for fire risk reduction that might be particularly suitable to the city's
properties in terms of habitat preservation, slopes, typical wind and weather patterns, landslide and erosion
risks, etc.
There seems to be some variation and inconsistency in Fuel Modification requirements stated by these entities.
We note in particular, that Cal Fire has not identified the city of Rancho Palos Verdes as a priority region for Fuel
Modification. Furthermore, it seems that Cal Fire makes a distinction for planning fuel modification to avoid
impacts to sensitive resources. In that context, we hope that the LA County Agencies can also develop nuanced
requirements that take into account all of the local factors.
It is important to note that none of these regulatory agencies requires completely denuding any area of all
vegetation. The primary recommendations are for spacing and pruning of shrubs and trees and the removal of
dead wood, invasive high hazard species and weedy grasses. The choices of which individual plants to keep and
which to remove will be extremely important and must be done with biological consultation.
Please keep in mind that many of the non-native and highly flammable trees and shrubs that have been named
by these agencies are commonly used in landscaping in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and surrounding
communities and should be considered for removal to lessen fire risks.
Management and Authority
The City of RPV and the PVPLC are joint signatories to the NCCP. Their respective roles and authority are clearly
defined in that joint contractural agreement. The PVPLC has the responsibility of managing the habitat areas of
the Preserve because of their expertise and understanding of the biological and ecological needs of the natural
habitat and the plant and wildlife species which depend upon that habitat. The PVPLC is not merely an optional
contractor hired by the City.
2
No consulting group should be contracted to "oversee and manage" projects in the Preserve
Parts of this staff report seem to insinuate that the City may intend to usurp the decision making
authority of the PVPLC within the Preserve. In particular the statement requesting to "authorize Staff to
negotiate a contract with lnterwest Consulting Group to oversee and manage the City's efforts, and
coordinate with associated agencies and manage associated contracts." seems to imply granting a
vague and inappropriate over-reaching authority to an outside consultant hired by the city for decision
making regarding the Preserve.
We are strongly opposed to any such arrangement with an outside consultant.
The contractural agreements of the NCCP, including the PVPLC's habitat management decision-making
authority must not be undermined. Likewise, the normal decision-making responsibility ofthe City
Council and the associated opportunity for public participation must be ensured.
The PVPLC has the right and responsibility to manage vegetation in the Preserve.
The staff report proposes to "build upon an effort by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
(PVPLC)" to eradicate acacia within the city of RPV. We support this part of the staff proposal only to
the extent that the City would remove acacia solely along the public right-of-way. However, we are very
concerned about the staff proposal to "compare the success and related costs of PVPLC's vendors on
that project and the success and related costs of removing Acacia shrubs from the right-of-way along
roadways to determine the recommendation for continued eradication of Acacia shrub efforts."
How is staff proposing to "compare the success and related costs" of these distinctly different
operations? The routine brush clearance along the roadsides that the City has been doing annually for
many years is entirely different from targeted removal of invasive plants within the Preserve . Roadside
work outside of the Preserve is easily accessed without risks of causing additional impacts from the
access itself. But within the Preserve, habitat is intended to be contiguous in order to minimize edge
effects. Even accessing invasive plants in such locations can create impacts to the surrounding habitat,
and any work to eradicate invasives must be carefully done in order to avoid collateral damage to
surrounding native vegetation. Working within habitat areas thus requires a far greater level of care
and knowledge and can be expected to be more time consuming and expensive.
Any expansion of the PVPLC's acacia eradication project within the Preserve should be left to the
PVPLC. The PVPLC should be the entity that determines where and when such work should be done
and by whom. They are the party responsible for insuring that any work done within the Preserve is
appropriate for habitat and wildlife protection and preservation.
We currently support the City's removal of acacia from the city public rights-of-way only in locations
where fuel modification has previously occurred. We are opposed to any additional removal of invasive
species within the Palos Verdes Peninsula Nature Preserve unless such projects are controlled and
initiated by the PVPLC.
Conclusion and Requests
1. Please provide a readable version of the updated Fuel Modification mapping to the public along with an
3
updated tally of the increased impacts to habitat both inside and outside of the Preserve that will result
from that increase in fuel modification.
2. Please provide a more detailed description (including maps and a Landscape Plan) of the city's proposed
Fuel Modification strategy for public review.
3. Please work with the Resource Agencies, the County Agencies and the PVPLC to optimize the fuel
modification requirement in order to maximize protections to habitat and wildlife in the Nature
Preserve while maintaining public safety.
4. Please consider adding a City Staff person with expertise in natural land management, including biology
and ecology to guide the city in projects that have potential to impact habitat.
5. Do not give any outside consultants any decision making authority for the City particularly as it may
relate to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Nature Preserve. Please honor the respective duties and
responsibilities of the City and the PVPLC as spelled out in the NCCP.
6. The PVPLC has authority for management of vegetation and habitat within the Preserve because of
their expertise. Do not attempt to undermine or work around that authority for any city projects.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.
Sincerely,
AI & Barbara Sattler
cc: Adrienne Mohan
Allen Franz
Cris Saribia
Mary Beth Woulfe
4
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, September 17, 2019 12:38 PM
Enyssa Memoli; Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: Modification to our comments re Fuel Modification proposals for 9-17-19 City Council
Meeting
LC
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 12:36 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon
<esassoon @rpvca .gov>
Cc: Mary Beth Woulfe <marybeth_woulfe@fws.gov>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; Allen Franz
<afranz@PacBell.net>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; AI <alsattler@igc.org>; Eric Porter <eric_porter@fws.gov>
Subject: Modification to our comments reFuel Modification proposals for 9-17-19 City Council Meeting
Dear City Council and City Staff,
We would like to modify our previous comments to you regarding the desirability of hiring a new staff person for the city with
expertise in natural land management, biology and ecology.
Rather than hiring additional staff with these professional qualifications, it may make more sense for the City to have an in
depth training session/workshop for existing City Staff. Such a training session/workshop should focus on the biology and
ecology of the natural environment in Rancho Palos Verdes. This training would help staff to better anticipate and understand
environmental concerns when planning for projects or activities that the City might be considering.
Again, we apologize for this communication being so late.
AI & Barbara Sattler
1
9.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
LC
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, September 17, 2019 8:24AM
CityCierk
FW: Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
From: Roger E. Hawkins <rehawkinslaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 9:39 PM
To: 'Alfred Visco' <visco@linkline.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: 'Kristen Raig-RHCA' <kraig@rhca.net>
Subject: RE: Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
Yes. Typo. It's the 17th. Roger
From: Alfred Visco [mailto:visco@linkline.com]
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 8:47 PM
To: Roger E. Hawkins; CC@rpvca.gov
Cc: 'Kristen Raig-RHCA'; 'Roger E. Hawkins'
Subject: Re: Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
Importance: High
Roger
Obviously you mean the 9-17 Council meeting.
Alfred Visco
From: Roger E. Hawkins
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 6:52PM
To: CC@rpvca.gov
Cc: 'Kristen Raig -RHCA' ; 'Roger E. Hawkins'
Subject: Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
Dear Council,
I've written the Council with suggestions regarding restricted access to the Land Conservancy as part of an attempt to
minimize the flre risk to RPV and adjoining communities. I would like to request to comment on those recommendations
at the 9-16 Council Meeting. I will be otherwise attending the meeting, as a RHCA Board Member assigned as one of the
two members of the RHCA Fire Abatement Sub-Committee.
Roger Hawkins, Director
1 3.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jessboop <jessboop66@cox.net>
Tuesday, September 17, 2019 2:21 PM
"city council"@rpvca.gov; CityCierk; jessica
Tonight September 17, 2019
Dear Mayor Duhovic, Mayor Protem and City Council Members, and City
Staff:
I was told by a neighbor that you have an item on the agenda regarding Fuel Modification tonight.
I do not know where you are talking about Fuel Modification! I cannot find a map or maps of the areas. I feel that as a citizen
and resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, who has concerns regarding this issue, I, and many others in Rancho Palos Verdes, who
are interested in this topic, should be provided maps of what it is that you are bringing to the Council. We have no idea!!!
I feel this item should be removed from the agenda, tabled, and discussions should be had with the residents in a round table,
so that we may be included in this item.
This is the first I have heard of this.
I know the City has lost a lot of people recently and maybe that is why the city is looking to have a contract company do this
work, however, no one knows this community like the people who live here, and I feel that the residents should be involved
first.
Please remove this item from tonight's agenda.
Thank you for you attention in this matter.
I would be there tonight, however, guests are arriving for a stay and I need to be a good hostess.
Best Regards, Jessica Leeds
1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RJ\NCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
SEPTEMBER 16, 2019
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, September 17, 2019 City Council meeting:
Item No.
E
1
3
Description of Material
Additional Information from Staff
Letter from Bob Nelson; Emails from: Sunshine; Margaret Vaughn;
Robert M. Bacon; Jennifer Mendonca; George and Leanne Twidwell;
Maria Gutierrez; Steve Otera; Donna Brittenham; Madeleine McJones;
Peter Nopper; Jeremy Davies
Emails from: Alfred Visco; Barbara Sattler; Jim York; Sunshine
Respectfully submitted,
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\20190917 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
CC:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Megan Barnes, City Manager's Office
Doug Willmore, Gabriella Yap, City Manager's Office
September 16, 2019
Additional Information for 9-17-19 City Council Meeting Item E
Staff has obtained additional information regarding Item E on the September 17, 2019,
City Council agenda, Cal Fire's Designation of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
(VHFHSZ).
The California Department of Insurance provided figures staff requested for homeowner
insurance non-renewals from 2015 to 2018 for the Peninsula zip codes of 90274 and
90275 (see attachments). The non-renewals cited are not all necessarily related to fire
risk.
According to the data, insurer-initiated non-renewals increased by 9.9% from 2017 to
2018 in 90275 (Rancho Palos Verdes), though they were down 8.3% since 2015. In 90274
(Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills Estates, Rolling Hills and unincorporated Palos
Verdes Peninsula) there were only two additional insurer-initiated non-renewals in 2018
compared to 2017, though the number climbed 7.2% since 2015.
Department of Insurance staff noted that the data in its August 2019 report on non-
renewals does not capture the full impact of the Camp and Woolsey fires because they
occurred in late 2018, and homeowners in the fire areas who saw non-renewals likely did
not receive notices from their carriers until early 2019. Next year's data should reflect the
full impact of these fires. Staff also requested complaint data for Rancho Palos Verdes,
but the department indicated it does not break down such data by city or zip code.
Staff spoke with David Sapsis, a fire scientist for Cal Fire, who is working on the update
of VHFHSZ maps. Mr. Sa psis stated that insurers should not use the VHFHSZ as a basis
for underwriting, as the maps quantify hazard, not risk, but that in the past few years, he
has received "dozens and dozens" of calls from consumers reporting being non-renewed
because of the maps. Mr. Sapsis stated, however, that no insurance company or agent
he has contacted about these complaints has confirmed to him that the loss or denial of
coverage was due to the VHFHSZ designation (this appears to be supported by articles
attached to this memo, in which interviews with insurance representatives confirm these
ratings are not used.) Mr. Sapsis welcomed any residents who were told their insurance
coverage was impacted by the designation to contact him at 916-445-5369 or
dave.sapsis@fire.ca.gov.
E.
The updated VHFHSZ maps being prepared by Cal Fire will reflect changes to land
formation and use improved modeling technology for fire weather, specifically wind
patterns. In Local Responsibility Areas (such as RPV), Cal Fire develops the maps with
input from local fire agencies. Staff was told Cal Fire will likely present the city with a draft
VHFHSZ map in fall 2020.
Concerns about potential decreases in property values and increases in insurance
premiums due to Cal Fire hazard mapping have come up in other cities, such as Mission
Viejo in Orange County.
In July 2012, the Mission Viejo City Council rejected an update of its Cal Fire hazard maps
and instead sought an exemption and created a Special Fire Protection Area, which
similarly required more strict construction and brush clearance standards. This enabled
the city to implement these standards in fire-prone areas without adopting the Cal Fire
maps. Details about this alternative are outlined in an excerpt from Mission Viejo's 2013
Housing Element and several Orange County Register articles (see attachments).
Staff has also spoken with local insurance brokers and agents and received a mixed
response. Some reported that they have indeed seen clients on the Peninsula experience
non-renewals and premium increases following the 2017 and 2018 California wildfires.
They noted that insurance companies use their own maps to assess fire risk, using
individual property histories, proximity to brush and trees, and features impacting
firefighter access -such as gates, narrow or one-way roads -to determine risk. Others
said they have not seen non-renewals or denials on the Peninsula due to wildfire risk.
One agent with 44 years of experience writing policies in RPV said he had not heard of a
single instance of this occurring at his company, and that he was not familiar with the
VHFHSZ designation. Insurers are generally worried about writing too many policies in
one area, they said, because it becomes too risky.
This point was also raised when staff contacted the Insurance Information Institute, a
national, industry-supported organization that provides explanatory information about
insurance to the public.
According to the institute's California representative, Janet Ruiz, insurers are mindful of
avoiding overwriting in areas with fire risk. She did not have trend information specific to
the Peninsula. Ms. Ruiz provided advice for homeowners who have seen non-renewals,
as well as a press statement by the American Property Casualty Insurance Association
and Personal Insurance Federation of California responding to the Department of
Insurance report (see attachments).
Attachments
California Department of Insurance Correspondence
Excerpt from the City of Mission Viejo 2013 Housing Element
Orange County Register articles
Insurance Information Institute Correspondence
American Property Casualty
Insurance Association"'
Contact: Nicole Ganley
Phone: 916-616-5855
Email: Nicole.ganley@apci.org
FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT
August 20, 2019
Insurers Respond to CDI Non-renewal Data
F
PE!~~)Ol'·1At !NSUHANCF FEDf~A1!0N
()I' CAL! (:(}i(N LA
SACRAMENTO, CA-The following statement is in response to data on homeowners insurance non-
renewal rates in California issued today by the California Department of Insurance. This statement can
be attributed to Mark Sektnan, vice president for the American Property Casualty Insurance Association
(APCIA) and Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California (PIFC).
"Recent data released by the California Department of Insurance shows a slight increase in the
number of homeowners policies being non-renewed in the areas impacted by recent wildfires and in
those areas with the highest risk of devasting wildfire. The data, however, does not address the
most important question --was the homeowner able to obtain insurance from another carrier? The
data shows that in high-to-moderate areas the non-renewal rate has held steady at 2% (2.1% in
2015; 2% in 2016; 1.9% in 2017; 2% in 2018). For new policies, we see that carriers continue to
write a significant number of policies in these areas.
"The data is clear. Insurers remain committed to covering homes in rural and urban zones, despite
paying out more than $26 billion in claims from the 2017 and 2018 wildfires. Those claims
payments will rebuild and revitalize these communities.
"As we face this new normal, we need to monitor how years of repeated wildfires are impacting
communities at risk including the challenges of obtaining homeowners insurance. Underwriting
profits from 2001 to 2016 were almost completely wiped out by the fires in 2017 alone-with
insurers paying out more than $2.00 for every $1.00 collected in premium. Insurers have to manage
the risks they cover, and some insurers may leave areas while other insurers may start writing in
these areas.
"While seeking solutions, we need to understand that California already has a tool to ensure
homeowners can obtain insurance-the California FAIR plan. We also need to protect against
long-term impacts on insurance availability.
SSS 12th Street, NW, Suite !:ihO, Washington, DC 20004 ! 202-82fl-7100
8700 Vl Bt·yn Mawr Avenue. SuitE~ '1200S. Chicago, IL C0631-3512 ! 847-29'1-7800
"California has been through this before, and we are fortunate our state legislature had the foresight
to create a home insurance safety net through the FAIR Plan. No matter where you live, every
homeowner is guaranteed coverage."
"In the past year, the California Legislature has enacted new consumer protections to help
consumers recover. One key measure included the development of an insurance finder tool which
consumers can access to find companies writing in their local area. This program, currently being
developed by the California Department of Insurance, is modeled after a successful pilot project in
ElDorado County."
The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) is the primary national trade
association for home, auto, and business insurers. APCIA promotes and protects the viability of private
competition for the benefit of consumers and insurers, with a legacy dating back 150 years. APCIA
members represent all sizes, structures, and regions-protecting families, communities, and
businesses in the U.S. and across the globe.
The Personal Insurance Federation of California (PIFC) is a trade association representing large
property-casualty insurers operating in California.
Megan Barnes
From:
Sent:
Soller, Michael <Michaei.Soller@insurance.ca.gov>
Wednesday, September 11, 2019 5:13 PM
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: Department of Insurance data for Rancho Palos Verdes area
Megan-here is some data for you. This is data from insurers that the Department released on August 20.
Insured-
Zip Initiated
County Code Year New Renewed Non renewed
LOS
ANGELES 90274 2015 853 7905 655
LOS
ANGELES 90274 2016 803 7923 620
LOS
ANGELES 90274 2017 835 7983 636
LOS
ANGELES 90274 2018 780 7993 625
LOS
ANGELES 90275 2015 1154 11616 847
LOS
ANGELES 90275 2016 1163 11730 911
LOS
ANGELES 90275 2017 1179 11771 944
LOS
ANGELES 90275 2018 1149 11778 885
Michael Soller
Deputy Insurance Commissioner
Communications & Press Relations, Northern California
California Department of Insurance
916-661-0556 -Cell
916-492-3542 -Direct
916-492-3566 -Media Line
mkhaet.soller~insura nc~,.£a. gov
.i.!l2ll.G1Df.E.~&~!JIQ.Y. I ~ter I ll1£.S'boQ)): I }nsj~Q.g[illll
Insurer-
Initiated
Non renewed
139
137
147
149
218
181
182
200
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication may contain corifidential and/or legally privileged
iriformation. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use, or
1
c. Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials can be classified into four basic categories: toxins, flammables, irritants, and
explosives. Because of their widespread use, it is assumed that each type of hazardous material is
transported through, used, or stored to some degree within Mission Viejo. The transportation of hazardous
materials to and from sites poses potential risks of upset. The major transportation routes within the study
area include the San Diego Freeway, the arterial roadways serving the commercial areas, and the OCTA
and Metrolink Railroad Line along the western margin. The potential threats posed by transportation
accidents involving hazardous material include explosion, physical contact by emergency response
personnel, exposure to large segments of the population via airborne exposure, or release into drinking
water sources. Further recommendations, restrictions, and safety precautions are outlined in the Public
Safety Element.
d. Urban/Wildland Fires
Urban fires have the potential to result in personal injury or loss of life, and damage or destruction of
structures at high monetary costs. Certain urban development scenarios pose more difficult fire protection
problems. These scenarios include multi-story, wood frame, high-density apartment development; multi-
story office buildings; large continuous developed areas with combustible roof materials; residential
developments in outlying hillside areas with limited fire flows; and uses storing, handling, and using
hazardous materials on-site.
The Orange County Fire Authority (OCF A) is responsible for providing fire protection services to
Mission Viejo. The City of Mission Viejo and OCF A worked with residents to identifY a framework for
addressing future losses due to wildfires in and around the City. The California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection identified and mapped several hazard areas based on weather, topography, vegetation,
probable ember travel, and fire history and required the City to adopt these zones and apply regulations to
address the hazard. While there was general agreement that these areas were "at risk", there was also
recognition that much had been done by the City and residents to mitigate that risk. There was also a
shared concern with unintended consequences of adopting these maps, including the potential for
decreased home values and increases in insurance rates. As a result, in July 2012, the City Council
rejected the maps and all Very High, High, and Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zones. In order to meet
State requirements for map rejection and to continue to focus on the mitigation measures that will improve
community safety, a "Special Fire Protection Area" was created. The Special Fire Protection Area Map
provides both residents and City staff with a tool to improve community safety by: 1) making the
information available to residents so they can take action to protect their homes and families from wildfire
through OCFA's Ready, Set, Go program; 2) guiding future planning decisions within the City; 3)
focusing OCFA fire prevention efforts through vegetation management and public education; and 4)
defining geographical areas in which specific wildfire construction standards contained within City
building codes can be applied to new home construction projects.
e. Natural Resources
In addition to seismic hazards, floodplains, and hazardous materials, areas with significant plant and
animal species are present in Mission Viejo. Areas of high sensitivity contain threatened or endangered
plant or animal species as determined by State or Federal laws.
The area with the highest sensitivity in Mission Viejo is the Arroyo Trabuco because of its significance as
a prime bird nesting/foraging habitat and major wildlife movement corridor. Other highly sensitive areas
include the waterfowl habitat near Oso Reservoir; the riparian habitat for birds and other wildlife in
Tijeras Canyon; the prime bird of prey foraging/wintering habitats along the ridgelines of Tijeras Canyon
and O'Neill Regional Park; and the undisturbed bird of prey foraging/wintering area in Plano Trabuco.
The City of Mission Viejo protects these highly sensitive areas through its development review
46 HOUSING ELEMENT
March 4, 2013
Mission Viejo seeks exemption from state fire maps-Orange County Register
NEWS > CRIME+ PUBLIC SAFETY
Mission Viejo seeks exemption
from state fire maps
flames come over !he the 2007 ~''""'"'""'"
FfH; fire hazard zonfJ maps have some residunts concernE>d that
it wm Increase insurance ralos and decrease va!ues,
By CHRIS BOUCL Y I Orange County Register
june 19, 2012 at 4:35 pm
MISSION VIEJO-The City Council on Monday night rejected state maps that
identify very high fire hazard areas in Mission Viejo, heeding residents'
concerns the maps might decrease property values and drive up insurance
rates.
Page 1 of5
https://www .ocregister.com/20 12/06119/mission-viejo-seeks-exemption-from-state-fire-rna... 9/16/2019
Mission Viejo seeks exemption from state fire maps-Orange County Register
"The biggest concern we had when (fire officials) came to us was the maps,"
Mayor Pro Tern Rhonda Reardon said. "We were being forced into these maps
and we didn't have any say .... The goal was to do what we could without
having significant repercussions on our residents to get us out of this mess.
We did that and we don't have significant repercussions."
The maps were created in the mid~90s following the 1991 Oakland Hills that
destroyed 2.500 homes and caused more than $2 billion In damage. Since
2007, the state has been working with the Orange County Fire Authority, its
contract cities and city fire departments to update the maps using new data
about fire history and ember movement, and new science and technology.
State law requires cities adopt the maps, which impose more stringent
requirements on property owners regarding vegetation management and
construction of new or remodeled structures in very high fire hazard zones.
Cities may be exempted if they can prove they have imposed vegetation and
construction standards in the zone on or before Dec. 31, 1992, that are
equivalent to or more restrictive than state law requires.
Given residents' concerns about the maps voiced at three previous meetings,
city and OCFA officials in May deCided to pursue the exemption as an
alternative, which includes designating a "special fire protection area" instead
of the hazard zone.
Research showed the city has had stringent vegetation management
requirements in place since before 1992.
Construction standards to harden homes against ember intrusion have been
in place in the city since 1995. And city code has been amended further to
include even tougher standards. Though the 1992 timeframe is not met, state
fire officials were OK with the difference because the intent of state law is
being met, OCFA Fire Marshal Laura Blaul told the council.
OCFA and city staff recommended the special fire protection area include the
very high fire hazard zone as well as two ''ember zones'' identified by OCFA
because of the potential for embers from the very high zone to travel and
ignite structures outside the zone.
Page 2 of5
https://www.ocregister.com/20 12/06119/mission-viejo-seeks-exemption-from-state-fire-ma... 9/16/2019
Mission Viejo seeks exemption from state fire maps-Orange County Register
The council voted 4-1 to reject the maps with findings that support an
exemption and establish the fire protection area. The move, when finalized,
will take the issue out of state hands and place responsibility with the city and
OCFA for enforcing local vegetation and construction codes and educating
residents how best to comply with those codes.
If the council had instead approved the very high fire hazard map, it would be
recorded at the state level and property owners in the zone would have been
subject to state fines and liens if they didn't comply with vegetation
standards. In addition, property owners would be required to disclose in a
sale that the property is in the very high fire hazard zone, which many
residents feared would affect the saleability or property values of their
homes.
Property owners in the very high zone also questioned whether insurance
companies use the maps in rating and underwriting, potentially causing their
rates to Increase or their policies to be canceled. Blaul said OCFA research did
not support the concern, and jim Mciver. Farmers Insurance district manager
for Orange County, said Farmers does not use the maps.
Councilwoman Cathy Schlicht, the lone dissenter in Monday's vote, said she
still is concerned the special fire protection area will affect property values
and insurance rates.
City Attorney William Curley said city codes that apply in the protection area
have been in place for years, and they apply citywide.
"If your residents haven't experience hardship yet, they're not going to,"
Curley said.
Schlicht said she'd prefer to take a slower approach and hear from residents
in the protection area, noting they weren't specifically brought into the
discussion.
'What everybody is ignoring is that now we have created a zone that affects
15,000 homes," Schlicht said. "And if those homeowners were aware of it
they'd be in here. r want to hear from them before 1 commit this legislation
onto them."
Residents can see a map of the fire protection area at cityofmissionviejo.org.
The issue is expected to come back before the council in july.
Contact the writer: 949454-7377 or cboucly@ocregister.com
Page 3 of5
https://www .ocregister.com/20 12/06/19/mission-viejo-seeks-exemption-from-state-fire-rna... 9/16/2019
Could fire maps hurt property values?-Orange County Register
NEWS > CRIME+ PUBLIC SAFETY
Could fire maps hurt property
values?
By CHRIS BOUCLY I Orange County Register
March 5, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Homeowners from Villa Park to Mission Viejo are speaking out at city
meetings, voicing frustration and concern over updated fire hazard maps they
say wll1 send property values plummeting and insurance rates skyrocketing.
State law requires fire officials to periodically update fire hazard maps using
the latest data, science and technology. The same law mandates city officials
adopt the updated maps, and few cities have seen more rancor over matter
than Mission Viejo, where officials on Monday will discuss the issue for the
third time.
More than 80 Mission Viejo residents packed a room at the Civic Center last
week to hear from city and fire officials why they weren't notified sooner
about the maps, and to question the credibility of the maps.
Resident joel Sugg spoke at a public hearing on the maps in early February.
Sugg lives at the north end of Mission Viejo in Painted Trails, a community
newly added to very high fire hazard severity zone map.
"I think that there's going to be a potential negative impact on homeowners'
policies present and future," said Sugg, who contacted his insurance company
about tht: issue. "They said it wouldn't definitely raise the fees irnmediately,
but they have the right to review it and potentially raise them."
https :/ /www .ocregister .com/20 12/03/0 5/could-fire-maps-hurt-property-values/
Page 1 of5
9/16/2019
Could fire maps hurt property values?-Orange County Register
Sugg also echoed others' concerns that insurance companies would pull out
of the area.
"It's definitely going to limit the competition because right now, where my
home is situated, it's on the sort of top side of the toll road," he said, "We
have vegetation at the back slope area. There's a lot of homeowners policy
writers that will not write because we are on the slope. My question is, how
many additional homeowners insurers will not write because we are going to
be in a very high fire hazard (zone)."
FIRE PREVENTION
Fire protection is the responsibility of either state, local or federal authorities.
Mapping very high fire hazard zones allows authorities and residents to
understand the risks associated with those zones, identify measures to deal
with those risks, and require the measures be taken.
State responsibility areas, which indude unincorporated Orange County, were
mapped in 1985 and updated in 2007.
Local responsibility areas, which include incorporated cities, were mapped in
the mid-90s following the 1991 Oakland Hills fire, which destroyed 2,500
homes and caused more than $2 billion in damage. Those maps have not
been updated until now.
Since 2007, the state has been working with the Orange County Fire Authority,
its contract cities and city fire departments to update the maps using new
data about fire history and ember movement. and new science and
technology.
The maps identify areas where strict state building codes implemented in
2008 should be applied for rebuilt or new structures, and state law requires
cities to adopt the maps so those codes will apply. Room additions and
rernodels would not be affected,
EFFECTS ON HOMEOWNERS
Though city, county and state officials have been discussing the maps for
several years, ensuring local knowledge is being considered, the public has
been left uut or the prot.ess, infuriating homeowners who wanted cin
opportunity to have their developments excluded because they fear what the
designation will mean for insurance rates and property values.
https :/ /www .ocregister .com/20 12/03/05/ could-fire-maps-hurt-property-values/
Page 2 of5
9/16/2019
Could fire maps hurt property values? -Orange County Register
OCFA Fire Marshal Laura Blaul took the blame for the lack of notification,
saying the fire agency was more focused on getting the maps finalized so they
could be used as a tool for educating residents about hazards and what they
can do about them.
The maps have been in place in unincorporated areas such as ladera Ranch
and Coto de Caza since 2008. she said, and the department has not received
feedback about insurance or property values issues.
OCFA researched the insurance issue, surveying five counties where the maps
have been adopted, and speaking to representatives from the state
Department of Insurance, the California FAIR Plan Association, which issues
insurance to those unable to get it from typical insurers, and the Insurance
Services Office, which provides data and underwriting services to insurance
companies.
No evidence was found to indicate insurance premiums were affected or that
insurance companies used the maps in the underwriting process.
However. RiskMeter Online, a Boston-based company that provides data
reports to major insurance companies, does make California fire hazard
severity zone maps available to underwriters and insurance agents.
Steve Inlow is an agent with Harbor West Insurance in Mission Viejo. Harbor
West, in business for 25 years, represents about 20 insurance companies and
issues policies for clients from Irvine to San Clemente. The bulk of
homeowners policies are from Travelers, Mercury and First American
Specialty insurance companies.
Inlow uses RiskMeter regularly. He said of the more than 20 data layers
available to select when running a RiskMeter report, fire hazard severity
zones was not among them. Inlow also said Harbor West has not received any
nonrenewals for fire hazard in Ladera Ranch or Coto de Caza.
CONCERNS REMAIN
Residents also have questioned the accuracy of the fire hazard maps because
demarcation lines don't always make sense, Blaul said. Lines are drawn
through neighborhoods such that one home on a street is in the zone while a
home next door is not.
https ://www .ocregister .com/20 12/03/0 5/could-fire-maps-hurt -property-values/
Page 3 of5
9/16/2019
Could fire maps hurt property values? -Orange County Register
ln addition. residents have taken issue with the criteria used to create the
zones, noting hazards are considered, but not mitigations such as nearby
lakes and reservoirs or stricter building standards used on their homes.
Blaul will be at Monday's meeting in Mission Viejo to discuss the city's options.
One possibility, she said, is to reject the map but designate areas the state
says are very high fire hazard zones as special fire protection areas or
something similar.
Stricter construction standards and a vegetation management plan would be
required in those areas.
"These people are at risk whether they adopt the maps or not," she said.
'They need to understand that, and they need to know there are things they
can do to increase the survivability of their homes."
Contact the writer: 949-454~7377 or cboucly@ocregister.com
Want local news?
Sign up for the Localist and stay
informed
Enter your email to subscribe
SUBSCRIBE
Tags: must read, North Beaches, South Beaches
SPONSORED CONTENT
Can Lack of Sleep
Cause Headaches? £!:
https :/ /www .ocregister .com/20 12/03/0 5/ could-fire-maps-hurt -property-values/
Page 4 of5
9/16/2019
Megan Barnes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hi Megan,
Ruiz, Janet <janetr@iii.org>
Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:48 PM
Megan Barnes
insurance information
Joint Statement Final.docx 08 20 2019.docx
It was good talking with you. Attached please find an industry statement regarding availability of insurance.
I also am including some messaging I have given to reporters to help them understand how insurance works in wildfire
risk areas.
It is important to shop and compare insurance. If you are non-renewed, another insurer may still be writing new policies
in the area. The California Department of Insurance (CDI) has a "Homeowners Insurance Comparison Tool" that lists
insurers with approved rates in your area. A quick email or call to these companies will let you know if they will insure
your home and for how much. As a last resort, homeowners are guaranteed issuance of dwelling fire insurance through
the California FAIR Plan, at state-approved rates. The FAIR Plan cannot turn you down. It will be more expensive because
it is a high-risk pool, but it protects your property and satisfies lenders. If you go with the FAIR Plan fire coverage, you
would have to get other homeowners' insurance coverages (liability, water loss and theft) through insurers writing
supplemental policies, known as "Difference in Conditions" policies. The CDI also has a list of insurers offering these
policies.
Spread of risk is always an important factor in how insurance companies manage their book of homeowners
insurance. Each insurer decides how much risk they can insure in any given area. In this case we are looking at areas
that have wildfire risk. An insurer contemplates the amount of money they would need to pay claims if a wildfire should
devastate an area.
Keep in mind that California has lower premiums than most states due to Prop 103 regulations. California is number
46. The California Department of Insurance looks at a 20 year history of losses prior to approving rate increase
filings. The recent years of mega fires have cost insurers close to 26 billion dollars according to CD I. With that in mind,
insurance companies have to evaluate their spread of risk in all wildfire risk areas of the state and make sure their book
of business is balanced so that they are not over extended in any one wildfire risk area. (We saw Merced Casualty go
out of business after the Camp Fire due to insuring too many homes in that area).
You will find that there is still insurance available. 1.1.1. advises homeowners to shop and compare if they are non-
renewed. Another insurer may still have the capacity to write new policies in the area. Often a local insurance broker
who writes insurance for several carriers will know which companies can take on new policies. The surplus lines carriers
and the California FAIR Plan are also good alternatives.
Janet Ruiz, CPCU, AIM
Director-Strategic Communications
Insurance Information Institute
T 212.346.5545 I M 707.490.9365
:0.1~\f'l.iii.org 1 Fa~:;ebook I Twitte1
1
Bob Nelson
6612 Channelview Court
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Octavio Silva, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA ()275
September 16, 2019
Sept". 2019 Zone 2 DE!R Comment~
City Council Meeting 911712019
Late Correspondence
RECEIVED
SEP 16 2019
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMI:NT
Subject: Public Comment: Zone 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
The vtew(s), opinion(s) and content expressed/contained In this email do not necessarily renect the view(s), oplnlon(s), official positions
or policies ol the Rancho Palos Verdes City Councit the City ol Rancho Palos Verdes or any of its employee5r agen~ contractors,
Commissions or Committees (the "City'). It should be interpreted solely as the vlew(s), opinion(s) and/or work product of the individual
author and should not be relied upon as the official position direction or dedsion of the City,
Octavio,
Jack Downhill was a personal friend of mine and RPV WWII hero. He often expressed his disgust
and frustration with our city's refusal, despite Monks' legal precedent, to allow his 6.9~acre lot,
zoned R1, to be spfit, that is, for him to realize the "highest and best use" of his land investment.
Upon his death, his estate requested I take a look at the trail of Jack's years of requests, delays and
denials. Therefore, I have been involved in the last two Zone 2 DEIRs and, here, am trying to give
voice to some of Jack Downhill and his estate's positions I questions.
But first: Wow! Took time to print all1 ,225 pages of this DEIR! (Our General Plan printed is about
400!) This DEIR's conclusion: intersection of Via Rivera and Hawthorne, though 3 miles away
from these 31 lots, needs a signal light due to the traffic these 31 lots will add! What? Statistics
I've found can easily provide "what do you want the answer to be?" Remember no Via Rivera I
Hawthorne signal light was required for Terranes Resort traffic, 1 1!2 miles away, with over
1,000 employees and equal number of guests!! This Zone 2 DEIR signal light requirement
defies common sense -and our City Council very properly, I believe, declined consideration of
this signal anyway!
Comment 1 : In several places it clearly states this DEIR covers all of Zone 2 ... it doesn't.
Proposed moratorium amendments cover only 31 home sites, all in the Portuguese Bend
Community Association (PBCA). Homes in Zone 2, but not in the PBCA, are not addressed.
For example, 3 multi-acre lots on Zone 2's Vanderlip Drive continue to be always addressed with a
stern staff 1 City Council message 'lot splits are not allowed,' despite P. Ehlg's 1993 determination
" ... parcels served by Vanderlip Drive could be developed without affecting the stability of
the large, ancient landslide. In fact, If development were combined with Installation of
additional wells, stability would be Improved." Owners are being told their multi-acre lots are
'fully built' despite being zoned R1!
The comment question Is 'why are these homes denied the equity of the Monks homes and
the 31 home sites? Simply, the ability to use your land to the highest and best use our city is being
granted to those 47 lots but not these 3 lots, though they are part of this Zone 2 DEIR. Why?
page 1 I
Sept. 2019 Zone 2 DEIR Comment~
Comment 2: 41 years ago, (Sept. 5, 1978) lot owners found themselves subject to RPV City
Council's Landslide Moratorium Ordinance. That's a long time to be denied use of land. Your
children can be born, graduate from college, put 19 years into a career but you are still waiting to
get the highest and best use of your Iandi RPV citizens do get fed up with city bureaucracy. For
example, in July 2002, almost a quarter of a century after 1978, John Monks et al brought an
inverse condemnation suit (regulatory taking of their land) against RPV. (Zone 2 DEIR Introduction,
pg. 1.1) In Appellate Court RPV settled; paid the Monks litigants $4.5 million and changed the
Moratorium to permit building on their 161ots. (ditto source).
$4.5 million, 161ots, and this DEIR involves 31 lots, mostly lots neighboring Monks lots! A
second land use suit, the Blacks case, found some of these 31 owners losing on procedural
grounds (they had not exhausted their administrative remedies). Now some have filed to start that
process.
Yet, RPV continues Vanderlip Drive's exclusion from these land use decisions, despite inverse
condemnation legal precedent. Three Zone 2 multi-acre Vanderlip Drive lots (#8,10, 20), are inside
but outside this Zone 2 DEIR; 41 years-always 'no.'
In the case of Jack Downhill, (Vanderlip Drive, lot 20, 6.9 acres, zoned R1) there is a long
chronology of lot split requests and city's various delays, denials evidenced In 50 some odd
pages of documents named below. Prior to submittal deadline, these will be submitted In full
to you and Federal Agencies involved in this DEIR's corollary, our Natural Community
Conservation Plan (NCCP), since Jack's estate also similarity commented on our NCCP saga.
Comment 3: You would think, with a Monks lot bordering the Jack Downhill estate's 20
Vanderlip Drive, equity would be almost automatic. However, after 10 years of RPV denials, you
can conclude equity is not any part of RPV's thinking processes for Vanderlip Drive lots. You could
say RPV's 'highest and best use' of these lots is forcing owners through more years of bureaucratic
positioning ('need this' then 'need more information,'-repeat for years and continuous staff 'no').
Positive finding: At least, now Vanderlip Drive's lots 8, 10 and 20 have an applicable 1,225·
page DEIR for their future plans and will not have to duplicate what's in it I
Conclusion: Jack Downhill fought the good fight, died, is buried in Arlington; now his family
estate asks, after frustration, disappointment and Interminable delays:
Will our Federal Agencies reviewing this document in line with RPV Council's NCCP, ask/
Instruct Jack's city to include these properties In this Moratorium amendment? Obviously,
based on history, his city will not. After years of continued land use Inequity, RPV's denial of
allowing 'highest and best use' of these multi-acre lots by refusing lot splits, is a topic very
apropos to this Zone 2 DEIR document and for future referral, If and when necessary.
Basically, some say these documents could be non-court, common law pleadings for long overdue
land use equity. I'm not an attorney, however, it does make sensei Equity! Simple!
Thanks for taking time to read this. Attached, fyi, is a list of some of the documents illustrating
what Jack Downhill, his family-now his estate, and his neighbors have been been put through.
Complete copies will be part of my written submission.
Bob Nelson ~ }J-__..-
page 2
Sept. 2019 Zone 2 DB/ R Comments·
Jack Downhill: Partial Trail of Documents re Vanderlip #20 lot Split.
JD =Jack Downhill communication
Lawson::::: Lisa Downhill Lawson: Jack Downhill Estate Trustee
~ 190506 KathyS V ... ip Lot Splits ltr.pdf
~ 1993 P Ehlg Zone 2 Def Uses.pdf
~ 2014 Pix EIR Monks Lots.pdf
~ 090218 JD ltr.pdf
~ 090222 Snell ltr.pdf
~ 090223 Hastings ltr.pdf
~ 090303 JD CC Mtng.pdf
~ 110114 Riordan Ltr.pdf
~ 110118 JD Ltr.pdf
~ 110119 Jim York Ltr.pdf
~ 110130 Kathy JD Draft.pdf
~ 110131 Davies Ltr.pdf
~ 110131 KS email.pdf
~ 120720 Div of Land App.pdf
~ 120720 Eviron Info Form.pdf
~ 121017 Weber RPV Respon1.pdf
~ 121105 JD Lot Split Numbers.pdf
131018 JD EIR Ltr.pdf
~ 140404 JD EIR ltr.pdf
~ 140421 Weber JD EIR ltr.pdf
~ 140425 Geology Soil Rpt Waived.pdf
~ 140429 Davies Ltr.pdf
~ 180906 Black Case.pdf
~ 181112 Johnson Ltr.pdf
~ 181211 Lawson Foote Ltr.pdf
~ 181211 Nelson ltr.pdf
~ 181212 Twidwell Ltr.pdf
page 3
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, September 16, 2019 8:43 AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Q. No A. Re: Zone 2 Environmental Impact Report. September 17, 2019 Agenda Item 1
LC
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 8:09 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: dennisggardner@me.com; robert.cumby@cox.net; theyorkproperties@gmail.com; ksnell0001@aol.com; idsloan@aol.com;
info@pvpwatch.com; cprotem73@cox.net; MrsRPV@aol.com; Dave Emenhiser <emenhiser@aol.com>
<emenhiser@aol.com>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Q. No A. Re: Zone 2 Environmental Impact Report. September 17, 2019 Agenda Item 1
Hi Octavio,
In case you didn't know, copying the City Clerk gets emails with an Agenda reference delivered to City
Council as "late correspondence". I addressed this to you with the hope that Staff might give the situation
some thought and you come off in your oral presentation as though you know something about what these
proposed changes in the RPV Development Codes mean to the people who live here. An EIR is an
exercise for robots.
See you Tuesday evening .... S
In a message dated 9/13/2019 7:44:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, OctavioS@rpvca.gov writes:
Good Morning Sunshine,
I received your email and comments. Your comments will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration as late
correspondence.
Thank you,
Octavia Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
1 I
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
ww:w .rpvca.gov
(31 0) 544-5234
From: SUNSHINE [ mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 2:02PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>; dennisggardner@me.com; robert.cumby@cox.net;
theyorkproperties@gmail.com; ksneliOOO 1 @aol.com; idsloan@aol.com; info@pvpwatch.com; cprotem73@cox.net;
MrsRPV@aol.com; Dave Emenhiser <emenhiser@aol.com> <emenhiser@aol.com>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Zone 2 Environmental Impact Report. September 17, 2019 Agenda Item 1
Hi Octavio,
Thank you for returning my call. This is one of my "bigger picture" thoughts which I can't seem to find a
way to get onto a Council Study Session Agenda. Given the fact that the City knows so much more about the
landslide complex then they did when the Landslide Moratorium Ordinances were created and given the
Court's ruling in the Monks Case, why does Staff continue to recommend tweaking the small issues instead of
presenting an argument to make the bureaucratic hodge-podge go away?
Does or, does not, this EIR exercise show that the City's non-Moratorium Development Codes are adequate to
produce appropriate geologic factor of safety decisions prior to the issuance of Grading Permits?
Given the fact that the City has permitted the construction of pre-fab/modular homes in both Zone 2 and Zone
6, what is accomplished by having a plethora of Zone-specific hoops to jump through before a development
application can be declared "complete"?
I can't see any mitigation recommendations which are different from what is required all over the City. Isn't
this a lot like dealing with a new subdivision proposal? In this case, the City is the "Applicant" and the
roadways, sewers and storm drains as proposed, are sub-standard.
Bottom line. When is somebody going to analyze the purpose of Moratorium Exemption Permits in
such a way that the City Council can decide whether or not their cost of processing is justified?
2
SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
On September 17, 2019, the City Council will receive public comments at its regularly scheduled meeting regarding the
updated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions. The
staff report is now available for review:
For questions, please contact Octavia Silva, Senior Planner, at (310) 544-5234 or via email at octavios@rpvca.gov
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Octavia Silva
Monday, September 16,2019 10:17 AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Support of Revised EIR & Support of Proposed Change to City Landslide Moratorium
Ordinance
Late correspondence for Zone 2 Draft EIR
Thank you,
Octavia
-----Original Message-----
From: Meg Vaughn <chezbacons@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 9:47AM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Support of Revised EIR & Support of Proposed Change to City Landslide Moratorium Ordinance
Dear Members of the City Council Of Rancho Palos Verdes:
My husband and I have owned a lot in Zone 2 on Cinnamon Lane for 25 years. We both support adoption of the revised EIR and
the change to the moratorium ordinance (revision to subsection P to Section 15.20.040, undeveloped lots in Zone 2). We have
always hoped to build a home on our lot and believe these steps will lead to fulfilling that dream.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Margaret Vaughn
chezbacons@gmail.com
1 I
From:
Sent:
To:
Octavia Silva
Monday, September 16, 2019 10:15 AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Supporting the revised EIR and proposed changes to the City Landslide Moratorium
Ordinance.
Late correspondence for Zone 2 Draft EIR
Thank you,
Octavia
From: south roof <southroof@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 10:13 AM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Supporting the revised EIR and proposed changes to the City Landslide Moratorium Ordinance.
Dear RPV councilmembers, My wife and I have owned a lot on Cinammon Lane for over 25 years and were residents
for almost 15 years. Over these many years I have attended many meetings concerning the Portuguese Bend landslide
Moratorium. I feel I have been very patient in letting this process play out. Judging from the findings of the DEIR it
seems like now we should be able safely build on our lot.
My wife and I are in support of adopting the revised EIR and in support of the change to the city landslide
moratorium ordnance.
Thank you,
Robert M. Bacon
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
1 /.
From: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 3:36 PM
To: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Letter in support of the revised EIR
LC
From: Jen Mendonca <jpm41189..@&r:rl_gil.conp
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 3:31 PM
To: pctavious@rpvq'l_,gov
Cc: Ara Mihranian <Ar~~~>; CC <~yca.gov>
Subject: Letter in support of the revised El R
Dear Mr. Silva:
Thank you for providing the Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact
Report for Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Revisions
We are in support of this EIR and strongly urge the city council to approve the
revised environmental impact report (EIR). I own a non-monk lot in Zone 2 on 86
Narcissa Dr. I bought this lot in 2013 with the plan of building a home for my family
to live in this beautiful city. Its been six years now and we still have to break
ground. I have been paying taxes on my lot and maintaining the upkeep for the
past 6 years but still cannot reap the benefit. Our soil application is still awaiting
approval. There are houses all around my lot on every side and a Monk lot house,
build just last year right behind my lot. This goes to show that there is stable land all
around my lot. I commend both Ara and you and the city staff for bringing the EIR
back and giving us a pathway to move forward. We trust the city officials will make
a fair and unbiased decision this time around, based on the recommendations in
the EIR study.
Thank you,
Jennifer Mendonca
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Octavia Silva
Sunday, September 15, 2019 6:59 PM
Teresa Takaoka; Nathan Zweizig
FW: Zone 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report
late Correspondence for Zone 2 EIR public hearing item.
Thanks
From: Leanne Twidwell [mailto:leetwid@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 5:13 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: re: Zone 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Silva and members ofthe Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,
As 45 year residents of Portuguese Bend, as well as a Zone 2 lot owners, we would like to thank you for reconsidering
the issue of the development of the remaining Zone 2 lots in Portuguese Bend.
We have waited patiently throughout the Monks lawsuit, and the subsequent development of their lots over the past
few years. We have been happy to see no negative results from any of the developments, (aside from the noise
created by the workers on the lot during grading and building of the respective houses, which admittedly has irritated
some of the residents, but is NOT sufficient reason to delay any further development of the other lots.) .
We were also delighted to see that the Draft Environmental Impact Report appears to agree with our observations,
finding no significant impact would result from the development of the remaining 31 lots.
Given these facts, we urge you to approve the Draft Environmental Impact Report as written, at your earliest
convemence.
Sincerely,
George and Leanne Twidwell
32 Sweetbay Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-541-1003
I
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Octavia Silva
Friday, September 13, 2019 12:48 PM
Teresa Takaoka; Nathan Zweizig
FW: In support of the updated EIR report
Late correspondence for Zone 2 Draft EIR.
Thanks
Octavia Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
octavios@rpvca.gov
(31 0) 544-5234
From: Maria Gutierrez [mailto:rainier@q.com]
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 10:45 AM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: In support of the updated EIR report
To the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council:
I am in favor of approving the DEIR as currently written and revising subsection P to
Section 15.20.040 (Exceptions) of the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance to apply to all
undeveloped lots in Zone 2.
In the mid-90's my parents purchased two lots (44 Cinnamon Lane and 55 Narcissa Drive) in
Rancho Palos Verdes with the belief that the Zone 2 landslide building moratorium that had
been in place would soon be lifted and that we would be able to build adjacent houses. It was
my mother's dream to live next door to her grand kids.
The geologist report by Dr Perry Ehlig in 1993 found that zone 2 "could be developed without
adversely affecting the stability of the large ancient landslide". In fact, Dr. Ehlig
found no evidence of recent landslide activity in Zone 2.
In the intervening years, due to the Monk law suit, all the properties surrounding our two
lots have been developed. Geological core testing of land just yards from our lots have been
found to be stable and buildable, but despite this my two lots remain a moratorium island
surrounded by new construction on all sides.
Thank you for your consideration and I ask that you vote in favor of the DEIR that would lift
the Zone 2 landslide moratorium for the remaining 31 lots.
Maria Gutierrez, Trustee
APN#'s 7572 010 019, 7572 010 010
1 /.
From: Steve Otera [mailto:steve.otera@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 10:29 AM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Landslide Moratorium, Portuguese Bend
Octavia Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
octavios@ rpvca .gov
Dear Mr. Silva,
I am a homeowner and resident of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I am in favor of approving the Draft EIR and expanding subsection P to Section 15.20.040 ofthe Landslide
Moratorium Ordinance to apply to all undeveloped lots in Zone 2 of Portuguese Bend.
I understand that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has had this issue in front of them for many years. There have
been consultants hired, lawsuits filed, reports written, Draft and Final EIRs prepared, and lots of taxpayer money
spent. We are again at a juncture where we can move forward and approve the expansion of the Landslide
Moratorium Ordinance to include all undeveloped lots in Zone 2. The DEIR very effectively provides details on
the proposed project's significant environmental impacts, the recommended mitigation, and residual impacts. The
DEIR is very thorough and well thought out.
Please move forward with the DEIR and finally put this issue to rest.
Thank you,
Steve Otera
I
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Octavia Silva
Friday, September 13, 2019 7:47 AM
Teresa Takaoka; Nathan Zweizig
FW: RPV Public Hearing Set For September 17, 2019
19.09.12 Letter Re RPV Public Hearing Agenda Item 1; September 17, 2019.pdf
Late correspondence for Zone 2 Draft EIR public hearing item.
Thank you,
Octavia Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www. rpvca .gov
octavios@ rpvca .gov
(310) 544-5234
-----Original Message-----
From: Donna Brittenham [mailto:Donna@bobcrockettlaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 2:27 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Robert Crockett <bob@bobcrockettlaw.com>
Cc: Donna Brittenham <Donna@bobcrockettlaw.com>
Subject: FW: RPV Public Hearing Set For September 17, 2019
Good afternoon:
Attached is a letter from Robert D. Crockett regarding Rancho Palos Verdes' Public Hearing, Agenda Item No. 1; Set for
September 17, 2019.
Thank you.
Donna Brittenham
Donna Brittenham I Crockett & Associates
23929 Valencia Blvd., No. 303 I Valencia, California 91355
310-889-4347 (cell) I 323-843-9711 fax
I
1
rocl<e • SSOCia
Sept em bcr 12, 20 l 9
By Federal Express and Email
Mayor Jerry V. Dhuovic
jcrry.duhovic(ij)rpvca.gov
Mayor Pro Tern John Cruikshank
jolm.cruiksh<.mk(@rpvca.gov
Councilman F::ric Alegria
cric.alegria@rpvca.gov
Councilwoman Susan M. Brooks
susan. brooks@rpvca. gov
Councilman Ken Dyda
ken.dyda@rpvca.gov
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Flavvthome Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Oetavio Silva, Senior Planner
Citv ofRancbo Palos Verdes .
30940 liawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 9027 5
OctavioS([i)rpvca.gov
Robert D. Crockett
23929 Valencia Boulevard No. 303
Valencia, California 91355
32~3-487-1101 I ~323-843-9711 fax
bob(ji)bobcrockettlaw.com
Rc: Public Hearing Agenda Item No. 1; September /7, 2019
Dear Councilpersons and Mr. Silva:
I represent eight lot owners within Zone 2. I write to express our support for the ElR.
The City proposes to amend Exception P of the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance
("LMO") to permit the development of3l undeveloped lots within Zone 2.
The DEIR identities no significant impacts from the proposed ordinance other than traffic
irnpacts. The DEIR identifies Impact I'~ 1 (Via Rivera and llawthorne intersection).
vvhich impact \vould be mitigated to less than significant with a traCfic signal. The DEIR
identifies Impact T~2. or Palos Verdes Drive South east ofNarcissa Drive. 'fhe DEIR
identifies Impact 'r-4, or construction impacts in the area. I will address these impacts
below.
Page 2
Scptem ber I 2, 20 19
The DEIR identifies no impacts to the historic landslide or impacts from the historic
landslide. 'I'he reason for the L,MO was to protect against such impacts.
As several of my clients reported to you in their individual letters, Dr. Perry Ehlig, the
City's geologist, originally reconunended creating Zone 2 as a means to segregate non-
impacted lots from lots impacted by the landslide.
In a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Calvin Clark on September 25, 1992 (Exh. A hereto). Dr.
Ehlig reported there ·'are no sound geotechnical reasons for preventing future residential
development" in then-future Zone 2 provided that certain geotechnical conditions be met
including monitoring wells, the installation of a sanitary se\vcr system and surface
drainage improvements. All those improvements have been made.
ln 1993, the City decided to carve the riskMfi·ee part of the moratorium area into a separate
"Zone 2." (A1onks v. Cit.v r?f'Rancho Palos Verdes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 263. 271 [84
Cal.Rptr.3d 75].) The lvfonks decision refers to a May 26, 1993. memorandurn from Dr.
Ehlig to the City Council about Zone 2. Dr. Ehlig reported that the purpose for the zonal
classifications was to break the moratorium area up into areas aflected by the landslide
and areas not affected by the landslide. Ehlig reported: "Zone 2 ~ Subdivided land
unaffected by large historic landslides." Ehlig made recommendations to the City
Council about building in Zone 2, ·which included fees to delh1y the cost of monitoring
wel1s, recomm.endations about building foundations and directing drainage to the street.
No geotechnical report since Dr. Ehlig has reported any kind of risk posed by the
landslide to lots in Zone 2.
Yet, the City has permitted the piecemeal approval of development of Zone 2 to the point
that it is nearly completely developed, leaving many mvners of undeveloped lots
questioning their inability to obtain building permits for the remainder.
The City's proposed amendment to Exception P would remedy this problem and create a
space of fundamental fairness with minimal impact.
As to the traffic issues raised in the DEIR, the impacts of ·r-1, ·r-2 and 'T-4 all assume
immediate and fhll buildout. ·r-4, especially, assumes full and concurrent buildout of all
31 lots. The impacts of T-1, ·r-2 and T-4 may never be felt if only a few of the lots are
actually built. or arc staggered over many years. Tne impact from development of the
lots may likely never be felt
Page 3
September 12,2019
We thus commend the City's proposed amendment of Exception P.
4817-3394 .. 7301, v. 1
EXHIBIT A
Dr. Perry L. !hlig
Consulting Geologist
1560 Via del Rey
South Pasadena, CA 91030
(213) 255-7873
Hr. and Mrs. E. Calvin Clark
P.O. Box 2285
Palm Springs, CA 92263
Dear Hr. and Mrs. Clark:
September 5, 1992
This 1.:1-tte:r is in :response to a frotU Sharon l:legetaehweiler, Broker
Auoehte of Palos Verdes Realty 1 for a statetUent xegarding geologic conditions
affecting your lot: on Th)"'l!ffi Place in the Abalone Cove a:tea of Reneho Palos Verdes.
The location of your lot is shown on Figure 1, baaed on information provided by
Mrs. Hegetsehvtdler. I understand thls letter will be used to provide geologie
iufot1ll£ltion for: selling the subject lot.
This letter vas prepared by me as a public. service ~eanse of my unique
kno~ledge of this area and the nearby Abalone Cove landslide, I have ~en the
principal person working on tba 1andalida 1 s stabilization since it
began mov.ing in 1978. I am geologist for the Abalone Cove Landslide AbatetUtHlt
District {ACLAD) and the City of !a.neho hloa Verdes Redevalopma.nt: Agency. I sm a
mam~r of the Abalone Cove Landslide Technical Panel which ~as established to
raconunend measures to permanently stab.Uhe the slide, The Rancho Palos Verdes
Agency ia responsible for implementing recommendations of the
·reehnic.al Panel bond moneys obtained from the settlem<~nt of the Horan, et
al •• versus County Los Angelent et al •• lawsuit.
Your lot is within the central part of a prehistoric landslide. Available
evidence indicates the central and uphill parts of the prehistoric landslide moved
during a of activity about 100,000 years ago and have remained
inactive since then. The downhill part of the landslide has experienced recu:n:ent
movement during the last 10)000 years • primarily because 'wave en:osion has reduc:ed
support along the downhill edge of the slide. The land mass affected by recurrent
movement b referred to as the Abalone Cove landslide in the area downhill from
your lot. This SO-acre hndsUda was active from 1978 to 1985. S:lnee then,
movement :!,l!l limited to local creep and readjustments, The slide activity wu
c:aused by a :dae in thE'! water tabla. Movement began at the end of the third
rainiest winter in the history of tos Angeles. The slide was stabilized by
removing ground water from vertical wells and reducing ground water recharge by
improving surface drainage. Abatement activities are paid for by ActAD through
taxation of the benefiting properties. !our lot is within ACLAD and is taxed as a
benefiting property.
Your lot is 300 fast northeast of the uphill edge of the Abalone Cove
landslide, It :h in an area where the ground surface descends eastward to the
bottom of Altam.i'l::a Canyon. The streatU channel fortUs the eastern boundary of the
lot. The surface elevation is 366 feet above sea level at Thyme l:'laet!! and descends
to about 295 feet above sea level in the streatll channel at the southeast corner of
the property. Surface slopes range from about 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) in the
uphill part of the lot adjacent to Thyme Place to about L S: 1 in the steepest
parts of tha lot,
Your lot is probably suitable for residential development if such developement
is permitted la this area at some future time. Ho~ever 1 a geoteehnical study will
be needed determine the suitability of geologic conditions beneath the surfa~e.
H conditions ere stdtable for development, additional studiu vi11 be needed to
establish criteria for foundation daaigna,
lleceu!lt'l your lot ts within the exht:i ng Landslide Moratorium aru, it can
not ba developed under existing regulations, I am frequently asked if tha
of geologic condit:iont~ landsllda abatexnent activities vH1
lifting of the moratorium. I offer no opinions regarding vhether or not the
moratorium will be lifted in the near future, However, in my opinion, there are no
sound reasons for preventing future residential development in the
vlc.in:tty or your lot prov:!:.ding the following conditions are met:
1. The system of de~ateri.ng ~ella must be permanently maintained and operated no as
to k.eep the vater table belov the 1ev!i!l that existed whtm the Abalone Cove
landslide was actlve. This may require the installation of more well$ than
exlst,
2. The system of monHodng wells must be expanded and fxequently monitored ltl
order to a close vatch on the watex table throughout the Abalone Cove
Landslide Abatement District. This vill permit timely reeommendations to be
made when necessary to prevent the water table from r.hing above a safe levd.
3. A sewer system 1nust be installed to eliminate on site sewage disposal. This
w:Ul eliminate a substantial source of groundwater recharge.
4. Surface dra improvements recommended by the Abalone Cove Technical Panel
l'tlnst be c.ol'tlpleted. This will reduce groundwater recharge from storm runoff.
5, Any other mH:igat.ion metH;ures recommended by the Abal.;:.ne Cove Panel must be
completed.
Pleaae feal frea to call upon me lf you hava questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
EXHIBITB
Trent Pulliam, Director of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Perry L. Eh~cfty Geologist
May 26, 199.3
SUBJECT: Suggested Guidelines fo~ Permitting Development in the Moratorium Area
For the purpose of these guidelines, the Moratorium area in divided into the eight
~ones listed below and shown on the Moratorium Map.
Zone 1 -Unsubdivided land unaffected by large historic landslides and located
uphill or to the west of subdivided areas. (about 550 acres)
Zone l -Subdivided land unaffected by large historic landslides. (about 130 acres)
Zone .3 -Uneubdivided land unaffected by large historic landslides and located
seavsrd of Sweetbsy Rosdv (about 15 aeree)
Zone 4 -Land affeeted by the Klondike Canyon landslide and adjacent land included
in the Klondike Canyon Geologie aazsrd Abatement District. (about 100 ae:res)
Zone 5 -Land affected by the Abalone Co~e landslide and adjacent land where minor
movement has occurred due to loss of lateral support. (about 90 acres)
Zone 6 -The uphill 1 westerly and central parts of the Portuguese Bend landslide,
where movement can be stopped through mitigation without requiring
shoreline protection. (about 210 acres)
Zone 7 -The seaward part of the Portugueee··nend landslide where control of
movement requires shoreline protection. (about 75 scree)
Zone 8 -Land effected by the flying Triangle landslide including immediately
adjacent laod. (about 25 acres)
Zone 1 includes about SSO acru of undeveloped land. Most :ts within the uphill
part of a large ancient landslide that was last active about 100,000 years ago.
Landslide topography is modified by erosion of canyons, filling of slide
depressions and smoothing and flattening of slide scarps. Zone l contains some
broad areas vhere slopes are lese than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) but the
majority of the area has slopes ranging betveen 5:1 and 2:1. Slopes steeper than
1:1 occur locally along the aides of canyons.
13-173
Memo of 5/26/93 from P. EhHg to T, Pulliam. page 2.
The large ancient landslide does not underlie all of Zone 1. Land adjoining Palos
Verdes Drive South in the southwest part of the zone ia unaffected by sliding and
probably has a factor of safety in excess of 1.50. Land in the eastern part of the
zone is also outside of the large landslide but it contains local landslides.
Extensive geotechnical studies have been conducted throughout Zone 1. Major goals
of the studies include (1) locating and determining the configuration of the
deepest elide plana, (2) determining ground water conditions beneath the area, and
(3) analy:d.ng.the .stability of the ancient landslide, and (4) evaluating methods of
improving the areas stability, Geotechnical studies are essentially complete in
the eastern half of Zone 1 but more are needed in the western half.
Suggested Guidelines
1. Any land in Zone 1 which can be shown to have a safety factor of 1.5 or greater
in regard to landsliding, or is correctable to a factor of safety of 1.5
through remedial grading, and will upon development have no adverse impact on
the stability of adjacent land, shall be granted an exception for habitable
development upon completion of all necessary remedial work. (This is consistent
with·e~isting City code.)
2. Any land in Zone 1 which can be shown to have a safety factor between 1.30 and
1.50 1n regard to the large ancient landslide and has a factor of safety of
1.50 or greater in regard to local slope stability shall be granted sn
exception for habitable development providing it meets all other requirements
in guideline 1 (above) and the following stipulations:
s. A network of monitoring and producing wells must be installed in accordance
with a plan approved by the Rsncho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency (RDA).
b. A covenant must be attached to each deed agreeing to participate in the
Abalone Cove Geologie Hazard Abat~ment District (ACLAD) and any other
district established for the purpose of maintaining the land in a
geologically stable condition.
c. Surface drainage improvements must be· installed in accordance with a plan
approved by the RDA.
d. A sewer system must be installed to serve all habitable structures.
e. All other RDA and City requirements must be met.
3. Any land in Zone 1 which is to be used for purposes other than habitable
structures may be granted an exception for nonhsbitable development providing
it has a safety factor of 1.15 or greater in regard to the large ancient
landslide and it meets the following stipulations:
a. No land modification may be made which will adversely affect the local or
regional stability of the land.
b. A network of monitoring and production wells must be installed in accordance
with a plan approved by the RDA.
c. A covenant must be signed agreeing to support and participate' in ACLAD
and any other district established for the purpose of maintaining the land
in a geologically stable condition.
dv Surface drnina&a improvements must be installed in accordance with a plan
approved by the RDA.
e. All other RDA and City requirements must ba mat.
13-174
Hemo of 5 /'2.6/93 from P. Ehl!g to T. Pulliam, page 3.
ZONE 2
!ac.kground
Zone 2 includes about 130 acres within e~isting Tract 14195 and Tract 14500
(except lots 1~ 2, 3 and 4 which are in the Portuguese Bend landslide), and the
subdivided land served by Vanderlip Drive. It is an area of subdued topography
within the central part of the large ancient landslide. Slopes of 5:1 and less
prevail over most of the central and doWnhill parts of Zone 2. Slopes generally
range between 5:1 and 3:1 in the uphill part.
The flattest parts of Zone 2 overlie a: gentle trough in the bedrock structure
beneath the slide. The slide base followed the bedrock structure sa the slide mass
translated serosa this area. This caused a surface hollow to develop in an
east-west direction across this area while the slide was active. The hollow was
eubsequently filled by stream and slope wash deposita. This created the gentle
alopea which drain toward the channels of Altamh·a Canyon.
Available geologic data indicate the base of the ancient landslide is at depths
ranging from lBO to 2&0 feet below the ground surface in moat parts of Zone 2.
Four to six deep core holes would be desirable to more precisely establish the
location of the slid~ base beneath parts of this area but new findings are
unlikely to have a si'gnificent impact on axisting interpretations. The slide base
is sufficiently flat i~ the area sea~ard of upper Narcisaa Drive that the
overlying slide man retdsts movement providing the water table does not rise
above ita historic levels. Baaed on well data, the water table was at a depth of
50 to 60 feet beneath most of this area prior to the start of pumping in 1980. The
water table is currently at an average depth of about 70 feet.
The 25 undeveloped lots in Tract 14195 and 15 in Tract 14500, and an undetermined
number in parcels served by Vande:rlip Drive, could be developed without adversely
affeeting the stability of the large ancient landslide. In fact. if development
were combined with installation of additional wells, stability would be improved.
Most lots can ba developed with minimal gra~ing and without a net import or export
of earth. Such grading would have no impact on the stability of the deep-seated
ali de.
Ground water is the only variable within Zone 2 which affects its stability. Zone
2 currently contains one monitoring wall and four producing wells. Eight to tan
more monitoring walls ara needed to provide a detailed picture of ground water
conditions within Zone 2. Four to six more producing wells are needed to better
control ground water conditions. !f the cost of the needed walls were funded from
fees paid for permission to develop vacant lots 1 development would improve the
stability of the large ancient landslide.
Suggested Guidelines
Development of undevalo~d lots shall be permitted tn existing Tract 14195 and
Tract 14500 (except lots 1~ 2, 3 and 4 which are in the Portuguese Bend
landslide), and the subdivided land served by Vanderlip Drive subject to the
following stipulations:
a, The lot owner must sign a covenant agreeing to participate in ACLAD and any
other district whose purpose is to maintain the land in a geologically stable
c:ondition.
13-175
Memo of 5/26/93 from P. Ehlig toT. Pulliam, page 4.
b. the lot owner must pay a fee to help defray the coat of installing additional
monitoring and produ~ing wells. Said fee shall not exceed the differential
between the sum of ACLAD fees previously assessed to an equivalent sized
developed lot and the sum previously assessed to the undeveloped lot. (The
annual tax difference between a developed lot and an undeveloped of equal size
is determined by the square footage of improvements.)
c~ Prior to issuance of a building permit, a geotechnica1 report must be
submitted to and approved by the City's geotechnical reviewers indicating what,
if any, local geologic hazards must be ~orrected prior to ~onstruction, and
shall apeiify foundation designs based on field and laboratory studies. Grading
exceeding 250 cubic yards shall r¢quire special approval by the City staff,
··d. If building occurs prior to installation of a sewer system; a covenant must be
signed agreeing to a sewer system and providing necessary easements for one.
e. All lot drainage deficienc:ies 1 if any, identified by the City staff must be
corrected.
f. Runoff from all buildings and paved areas must be contained and directed to
the street or to an approved drainage course.
g. All other relevant building code requirements must be met.
ZONE .3
ll,sek.ground
About 15 acres of undevelop land is present within the area bounded by the main
channel of Altamira Canyon on the vest, Sweetbay Read on the north, and the edge
of the Portuguese Bend landslide on the east and southeast. Most of this land has
gentle rolling topography and could be developed into residential lots vith only
minor grading,
Available data indicates the base of the large ancient landslide is nearly
hori~ontal beneath this area and is at a depth of 200 to 250 feet below the
ground surface, Three to five deep core h?lea are needed to confirm this.
Ground water conditions are the main variable affecting the stability of the
large ancient landslide beneath this area. The area should remain stable as long
sa the water table rises no higher than ita historic high level. The area contains
two producing wells but no monitoring wells. Data from the two wells and
projections from wells in the adjoining area indicates the water table is 10 to 15
feet lower than it was in 1983. At present, the water table ranges from about 60
to as much as 130 feet below the ground surface. Three to five monitoring wells
and one or two additional producing wells should be installed during development
of this area.
Suggested Guidelines
Additional geologic studies are needed to ac~urstely locate the b~se of the large
ancient landslide beneath this area, If the results of such studies are favorable,
development could be permitted contingent upon meeting all City requirements
pertaining to development of residential tracts and subject to the following
stipulations:
a. Ground water monitoring and production wells must be installed in accordance
with a plan approved by the RDA.
h. Surface .drainage channels must be paved in accordance with a plan approved by
the RDA.
13-176
1\i.emo of 5/26/93 from P. Ehl.ig to T. Pulliam, page 5.
e. A sewer system must be installed.
d. A covenant must be attached to each deed requiring the owner to participate in
ACLAD and any other district whose purpose is to maintain the land in a
geologically stable condition.
e. All other RPA and City requirements must be met.
ZONE 4
Backsroun~
The Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard A~atement District has controlled the Klondike
Canyon landslide. The maximum measured horizontal displacement is only 2.5 feet,
ell of which occurred prior to 1987. The primary cause of instability was the
buildup of artesian water pressure beneath the downhill part of the landslide.
Control wae obtained by pumping water from a well at the beach. Infiltration was
reduced by installing a culvert in Klondike Canyon from Palos Verdes Drive South
to the beach. Infiltration can be further reduced by lining Klondike Canyon at
least as far upstream as the head of the Klondike Canyon landslide. This would
would reduce the likelihood of renewed movement in the uphill part of the slide
during periods of high :cdnhll.
The factor of safety is not an issue in the Klondike Canyon landslide. The slide
is unconventional in that the downhill edge of the slide's base terminates more
than 100 feet below the ground surface. This was msde possible by upward bending
of the downhill part of the slida, Artesian ground water pressure facilitated the
uplift. The factor of safety has not been calculated because of the slide's
unconventional nature. Calculations would almost certainly yield a factor of
safety well above 1.5 providing there is no artesian uplift pressure.
Zone ii contains part of the Seaview tract (Traet 22.835) and the Portuguese Bend
Club. Moat lots are. already developed within these tracts. About half of Zone 4
consists of undeveloped land located on the ridge between Klondike Canyon and the
Portuguese Bend landslide.
1. Lot owners in the Seevie~ tract and Portuguese Bend Club may rebuild or make
additions to existing buildings subject to the following stipulations:
a, The owner must sign a covenant agreeing to support and participate in the
Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District and any other district
whose purpose is to maintain the land in a geologically stable condition.
b. The building must connect to the Los Angeles County sewer system o~ to an
approved holding tank. There shall be no on-site disposal of waste water.
e, Prio~ to issuance· of a building permit, a geotechnical report must be
submitted to and approved by the City's geotechnical reviewers indicating
what. if any, local geologic hazards must be corrected prior to construction,
and specifying foundation designs based on field and laboratory studies.
d. Roof runoff from all buildings and paved areas on the site most be
contained nnd directed to the street or an approved drainage course.
e. All lot drainage deficiencies, if any. identified by the City staff must be
corrected.
f. All other relevant building code requirements must be met.
13-177
Memo of 5/26/93 from P. Ehl!g to T. Pulliam, page 6.
2. Undeveloped land within the Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District
is mainly west of Klondike Canyon and north of Palos Verdes, Drive South and ia
accessed from the eaat edge of the active Portuguese Bend landslide.
Development of this land shall be held in obeyance until the adjacent part of
the Portuguese Bend landslide is stabilized.
Zone 5
Background
The Abalone Cove landslide has been stabilized by lowering the water table. Most
movement occurred prior to 1985. Only creep at rates of leas than an inch per year
and local readjustments have occurred since 1985. Existing abatement activities
appear adequate to prevent renewed slide movement during rainy periods,
Nonetheless$ it would be prudent to limit building to that permitted by the
current City guidelines for this area until slide creep has stopped and planoed
abatement measures, such as th:ainage improvements, sewers and shoreline protection
are eompleted.
Susgeated Guidelines
1. Development shall be limited to that currently permitted by City guidelines for
this area until after planned remediation is completed and slide creep has
stopped.
2. After the above condition are met, building shall be permitted subject to all
conditions imposed in Zone 2, and:
a. a sewer system must either be in operation or a holding tank must be
utilized. No on site sewage disposal will be permitted.
b. A ge.otechnieal study must be made to determine the suitability of the site
for all proposed improvements and to provide foundation design
specifications for proposed buildings. In addition, foundations must be
inspected and approved by a geotechnical consultant during construction.
c. A covenant must be signed by the owner specifying thst the City shall be
held harmless in the event that ground settlement or other forms of ground
movement damage improvements.
Zone 6
The Portuguese 'Bend landslide can be divided into a landwu·d :tone (Zone 6) which
can be stabilized without shoreline protection, and a seaward zone (Zone 7) which
requires shoreline protection for stabilization. Palos Verdes Drive South forms
the approximate boundary between the two zones.
Zone 6 includes about 210 acres in and adjacent to the landward and central parte
of the Portuguese Bend landslide. As a result of remediation, movement has stopped
or nearly stopped in the northern and western parts of Zone 6. Movement continues
at a rate of one to three feet per year in the central and southeastern part of
Zone 6 but is less than one-tenth the rate of movement prior to remedial grading
in 1986.
13-178
Memo of 5/26/93 from P. Ehlig to 1. Pulliam, page 7.
Remediation to date includes (1) removal of water from 17 wells distributed
throughout the area, (2) the moving of about one million eubie yards of earth so
as to restore drainage and reduce driving force in the northern and eastern parts
of the area, and (3) installation of a temporary culvert to conduct runoff to the
oeean. Movement can be stopped throughout Zone 6 by additional improvements in
surface drainage and additional remedial grading.
!n the area west of Portuguese Canyon most of Zone 6 is subdivided into lots, part
of which have. hcn.1e:.~s on them. Thh and the aubsu:rfaee structure of the landslide
limit slide abatement to installation of wells, improvements in surface drainage
and installation of a sewer system in:m~st parts of the .subdivided area. Lot
boundaries should be reestablished before major surface modifications are
permitted. The slide has displaced lot improvements, streets and utilities from
their original locations. As s result, lots sre no longer in their legally
described locations. The amount of displacement varies from one part of the slide
to another. In places, the original lot boundaries have been distorted and
fragmented by abrupt changes in displacement serosa slide ruptures. The only
viable solution is to void the original descriptions of lot locations and
establish new ones.
East of Portuguese Canyon, Zone 6 is undeveloped. As a result, remedial grading
can be performed without interference from existing improvements. The slide base
ia relatively shallow in the northeast part of this area. It may be feasible to
remove the northeast pert of slide and replace it with compacted fill founded on
firm bedrock. This would create a slide-free area with a factor of safety in
e:xcef:ls of 1.50.
Suggested Guidelines
1. As long as this part of the slide continues to move, improvements shall be
limited to landslide abatement and other improvements permitted by current City
guidelines for this area.
2. After the landslide has stopped moving and there is reasonable assurance that
movement will not ~esume at a future time~ land ownership boundaries shall be
reestablished. This may be done under the auspiees of the Redevelopment Agency
but the costa must be paid by land owners.
3. Following reestablishment of legal lot boundaries, building shall be permitted
in the subdivided part of Zone 6 subject to the same conditions imposed in Zone
5 under suggested guideline 2.
4. After reestablishment of legal lend ownership boundaries, the unsubdivided parts
of Zone 6 shall be subject to the same suggested guidelines as Zone 1.
zmm 7
The 75 acres of the Portuguese 'Bend landslide located saawsrd of Pa1ps Verdes
Drive South is poorly controlled by existing abatement activities. Permanent
control will require shoreline protection. No development should be permitted in
this area until after enactment of a plan of control which includes shoreline
protection.
13-179
Memo of 5/26/93 from P. Ehlig to T. Pulliam, page $.
The Flying Triangle is currently uneontrolled, No development should be permitted
within it or land affected by it until the Flying Triangle landslide bas stoppe~
moving and is under the eontrol of an abatement district.
13-180
RANCHO PALOS VERDES. REDEVEbOPMENT AGENCY·
LANDSLID.E .AREA
CtTY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
'. .
CITY Oil'·
SCALI: ,. ~ OM~
~PP!lO.~: .~~.~!'-110!, icm
DATE·· $•1.~"':~
QL• J•t
11'11' lii1'llfm .•
13-181
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Thursday, September 12, 2019 8:07 AM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Memoli
FW: 31 Zone 2 Homes
FIRE_EIR_SEPT11_2019_MadeleineMCJONES.pdf; CONCRETE_EIR_SEPT11_2019
_MadeleineMCJONES.pdf; GPSEIR_SEPT11_2019_MadeleineMCJONES.pdf
From: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 7:46AM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>; Nathan Zweizig <NathanZ@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: 31 Zone 2 Homes
Late Correspondence for Item No.1 under the Public Hearing section ofthe 9/17 City Council Agenda.
This email has attachments that should be printed.
Thank you,
Octavia Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www. rpvca.gov
gctavios@rpvca.gov
(31 0) 544-5234
From: Madeleine McJones [mailto:Madeleine.McJones@csulb.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 4:09 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: 31 Zone 2 Homes
Octavia
That is one monster report I have attached my concerns over the ZONE 2 BUILDING.
1. The Traffic Routed over the most active hazard zone roads and landslides is crazy
2. The Fire Safety for future residents is not even really addressed
3. GPS you do not even really know where the PBCA roads and homes currently are-show us the LAND TRACTS.
Aside:
I take this objection with Hunters numbers My home does not use 240 Gallons of water a day -100 Percent of any surface
water in our community evaporates before reaching the slip plane or becoming groundwater. The groundwater that is th/
problem you seek is from another city above the landslide it always has been it always will be.
1 •
Madeleine McJones
562.985.4924
. send me web changes
send me cob news
College of Business
From: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 9:18AM
To: Madeleine McJones <Madeleine.McJones@csulb.edu>
Subject: RE: 31 Zone 2 Homes
Hello Madeleine,
I've attached a copy of the City Council Staff Report for the updated Draft EIR related to proposed Zone 2 Landslide
Moratorium Ordinance Revisions.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Octavia Silva
From: Madeleine McJones <Madeleine.McJones@csulb.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 1:21 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: 31 Zone 2 Homes
NotJc~ r.lf Prepara«icn r.lf an Environment.1:1 Impact ft1>purt (f"IR) J)IJNittl\flt 1¢ the
Requlr,..rnont# of tho C~lif<:>tr<ta Envrronm~tntal Quality Act. (CE'Cl,A) tor pmp(l>&ll!d coda
arn.tndmotrts to E::c~ptlon "P" of Title 1 S.21U140 (1...3nd1111de Morawt!um OrdlnamJe) of the
RJlncoo Palo& V1>r~ f;hM'liCiP!'l C~ ~rtltlnlng to lomt 2
This is not fair to the people living in this community or using our NOT zone 2 roads for free to haul cement and building
material this impacts our way of life for how long 20 +years of construction.
Please have a DEADLINE date to close this building window this is not a new neighborhood you are building many people
purchased here for quiet and paid for much need peace and a future of peaceful living you are taking that away for untold
unending construction. There needs to be coordination on Dumping and Cements Drop schedules, people are having lives
here.
These trucks need to STAY OFF of our ZONED landslide roads. They shake my landslide property and are causing my property
damage and my road damage. They need to go up NARCSSIA not active PEPPERTREE with active cracks within 100 feet. This
will also impact PV drive South damage.
2
Madeleine McJoncs
Website Developer
Instructional
Technology
College ofBusiness
CSULB
562.985.4924-ROOM
253
Colf~ge of Business
3
M
··········-.. ·-···---·----·--·-··----
Octavio Silva
Senior Planner
City of RPV
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
September 11, 2019
I MCJONES
3 Tangerine Road RPV · 3102134392
·-------·---·---·----
FIRE SAFETY and EIR Development in Zone 2 of the Landslide Moratorium Area
Please read this concern, I do not think this report addresses evacuation and control with enough concern for
community safety.
I have addressed this to the board of directors and the local fire enforcement and verbally they all agree but this report
does not reflect any of this but it loads 31 more homes in to our community.
When we have an emergency incident the two access roads become unsafe and congested. One large fire truck will
block a whole intersection and we would also have people loading and moving large horse trailers. We very dearly
could have a situations where people are going to burn in their cars.
I do not feel the FIRE SAFETY and evacuation has been address adequate in the presented EIR report.
OVERGROWTH Is not controlled Current empty lots are not being disked like they used to they are over grown and
dangerous. The recent wet season has made many lots unpassable. There has been little enforcement of the
overgrowth laws.
THERE IS NO POSSIBLE SAFE WAY FOR HUMAN AND EQUINE EVACUATION IN THE PBCA UNDER THE
CURRENT POOR ROAD ACCESS AND TWO GATES YOU MUST CONSIDER ANOTHER GATE BE INSTALLED AND
THE ROAD IMPROVED AT THE CHERRY HILL EASEMENT.
Madeleine McJones
MADELEINE MCJONES
Octavia Sil va
Sen io r Planner
City of RPV
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
September 11, 2019
3 Tangerine Road RPV · 3102134392
homecoding@gmail.co m •
-------------·--·------·-------
N-1 CONCRETE TRUCKS THRU THE HAZARD ZONE
I take extreme objection to the statement less than significant impact as the route of cement trucks over the on
unstable HIGH HAZARD ZONE roads that get the least care but get the MOST DAMAGE next to home s and on roads with
CLEAR open fissures.
I WILL HAVE DAMAGES and MY HOME WILL BE MOVED
I have lost plates and collectables, we have to relevel and lift the home after each cement attack, I now your fancy
reports think you can just hook us up but when you visit and we pick up the home two feet perhaps you will
understand we cannot just "Hook up" to things. We had to pick up the home with the last building traffic. My home
will be moved to a new GPS location when your route this many CEMENT Minutes trucks next to active
LANDSLIDE CRACKS . Who is going to redraw my tract parcel lines after the trucks move my home?
RPV NOT GOING TO ENFORCE THIS
Enforce dumping issues in our community is not available now, that record is historically clear -You do not have the
staff. I have tried to work with you. I have had to follow dump trucks, because your staff cannot "catch them" dumping
you will not catch cement trucks either. I call this plan a joke to say any of this will be enforced . There is little to zero
truck or building control in our community, none that really stops bad law breaking behavior. The concrete will roll each
every ten minutes all day.
N-1(b) PBCA Conditions of
Approval. All project area construction contractors shall comp ly with the fo ll owing standard Portuguese
Bend Community Association conditions:
Large truck deliveries must enter and exit from the Peppertree Gate. Semi-trucks allowed for
heavyequipment clelivety only. All other deliveries limifec/ to 3 ax le or smaller trucks.
Concrete Deliveries: Only one truck on-s ite at a time. Second and third trucks can stay on Narcissa or
Sweet bay. No more than three trucks in PBCA at a time. All trucks m ust enter and exit through the
Peppertree Gate.
Noise from radios or other amolified sound devices shall not be audible bevond the orooertv
The routing of t hese t r ucks i nto HA ZA RD ZO NE w it h t he worst mainta in ed roads and th e most ac tive da mage of our
community it is insane tha t the city of RP V woul d rou t e an y traf f i c o n to t he ACT IVE LA NDS LID E, These t r ucks can go up
NARC ISS A w hi ch is muc h more sta bl e. Our SAFETY A ND HOM E RE PAI RS afte r t hi s w e ig ht and mo veme nt ons laught needs
to be reco nsi d ere d .
Madeleine McJones
E I MCJONES
3 Tangerine Road RPV · 3102134392
-----------·-···---·-----·-·
Octavio Silva
Senior Planner
City of RPV
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
September 11, 2019
GPS LOT/ PARCEL LOCATIONS PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
Most of our community property is not on current GPS parcel land how can you determine where any
lots in any of the Zones are in this community if you are not sure where homes are, even the Glass
Church is not on its original GPS Lot Lines, the road in front of the glass church is active this as your
report clearly states is an extremely seismic active area. I do not feel it is valid to allow building until all
lot lines are secured. Also all community roads are also in debate and many of the community
easements are also not mapped or maintained so how can you determine where the lots really are to
build on.
Basically I am asking the city to secure property ownership and lot lines with the county of Los Angeles
before building in this moving area. If you do not know where our community roads are located, service
easements and property lines. My neighbor is in court yesterday saying that his home has slipped on to
my GPS land and that I own no more land, the whole community has slipped on GPS lines, how do you
determine the property lines and road easments in our community.
Nothing in this report shows the Los Angeles County GPS property coordinates or lines on this EIR that I
can see. Or the Easements based on GPS property lines and real land and real home locations. You only
show some fuzzy poor pixel maps not high resolution overlays. When I come to your office you make it
clear the city is using LA County GPS lines and in recent enforcement you use GPS lines.
Before this EIR can be considered you must determine true ownership of all parcel and current PBCA
tracks and where the roads actual are and easements that have been lost or not maintained and now
are blocked and consumed by greedy neighbors.
I do not feel this is unreasonable and it was clearly avoided in this document.
Madeleine McJones
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Octavia Silva
Thursday, September 12 , 2019 1:21 PM
Teresa Takaoka ; Nathan Zweizig
FW: 31 Zone 2 Homes
REROUTING _EIR_SEPT12 _2019_Made leineMCJONES .pdf
Late Correspondence with attachment for DEIR public hearing item.
Thanks
Octavia Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275
www.rpvca .gov
octavios@rpvca .gov
(31 0) 544-5234
From: Madeleine McJones [mailto:Madeleine.McJones@csulb .edu)
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 10:58 AM
To: Octavia Si lva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE : 31 Zone 2 Homes
Octavia Silva
OctavioS@ rpvca .gov
Senior Planner
City of RPV
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
September 12, 2019
Hello ,
This letter it to address NOA-Zone 2 DEIR routing of Cement trucks times 31 Homes in Zone2 onto the active
hazard zone using the private road Peppertree in PBCA that will impact the family homes and property safety of the
residents .
I would like to propose that your team and PBCA consider the re-routing of the Cement trucks though the York
Property called Catal i na View Gardens. This simple change will mitigate landslide impact, road damage, house
damage and home values. It is also a greener approach.
This Catalina View Gardens is more stable and has fewer active land slide scarped cracks. This route is much closer
and will save on EMISSIONS and FUEL USE .
I do not feel this an unreasonable idea, please seriously consider this alternative routing .
1 I
Thank you,
Mad e leine M cJones
Madeleine McJones
562.985 .4924
, se nd m e web changes
se nd m e cob news
{\
I Co ll ege of Business
\
From: Octavia Si lva <OctavioS@rpvca .gov >
Sent: Wedn es day, September 11, 2019 9:18AM
•L
To: Madeleine McJones <Madeleine.McJones@csulb .edu >
Subject: RE : 31 Zone 2 Hom es
Hello Madeleine,
.,
I've attached a copy of the City Council Staff Report for the updated Draft EIR related to proposed Zone 2 Landslide
Moratorium Ordinance Revisions.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any que stions .
Thank you,
Octavia Silva
From: Madeleine McJones <Madeleine .McJones@csulb .edu >
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 201 8 1:21 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov >
Subject: 31 Zone 2 Homes
2
SUbject; NIDttce Df P n~paratio n of •n Erwi ro""'"'lal Im pact ~pon (et R) pursuant to the
RoCJulromont. or tl!o Cl!l!fomf Env i ronm •l'!otlll Q\J•IIty A"Ot (CEa.-1 !'or propostd oodt
am«!drntllb to E~CA,Ptlon "P"' of ntt• t5.20..NO (landlllde Mol'lltoriLH'II OnllNf!C41) of tht
Rancllo Palos Vordel Mt~~n lolpal Codt pe~r~alnlng to Zan• :l
The Ci ty ar R:l nen o F'aJo& V«<<es oril';.n lly prll{)are<l and ·Otreu l 1«1 Drafl Env1ro11111 nta l tmpact R~ (EI Rl
This is not fair to the people living in this community or using our NOT zone 2 roads for free to haul cement and building
material this impacts our way of life for how long 20 +years of construction.
Please have a DEADLINE date to close this building window this is not a new neighborhood you are building many people
purchased here for quiet and paid for much need peace and a future of peaceful living you are taking that away for untold
unending construction . There needs to be coordination on Dumping and Cements Drop schedu le s, people are having lives
here.
These trucks need to STAY OFF of our ZONED landslide roads. They shake my landslide property and are causing my property
damage and my road damage. They need to go up NARCSSIA not active PEPPERTREE with active cracks within 100 feet. This
will a lso impact PV drive South damage.
Madeleine McJones ~
Website Developer
Instructional
Technology
College or Business
CSULB
562.985.4924 -ROOM
253
S lATE U N I V E R SI TY
College of Business
3
ACH
MADELEINE MCJONES
Octavia Silva
Senior Planner
City of RPV
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
September 12, 2019
Hello,
3 Tangerine Road RPV · 3102134392
homecoding@gmail.com ·
This letter it to address NOA-Zone 2 DEIR routing of Cement trucks times 31 Homes onto the active hazard
zone on private roads in PBCA that will impact the family homes and property safety of the residents.
I would like to propose that your team and PBCA consider the re-routing of the Cement trucks though the York
Pr operty called Cata l i n a View Ga r dens. This simple change will mitigate landslide impact, road damage, house
damage and home values . It is also a greener approach.
This Catalina View Gardens is more stable and has fewer active land slide scarped cracks. This route is much
closer and will save on EMISSIONS and FUEL USE.
I do not feel this an unreasonable idea, Please seriously consider this alternative routing.
Thank you,
Madeleine McJones
• {
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Thursday, September 12, 2019 8:09AM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli
FW: Pass the Draft Environmental Impact Report and expansion of exception P
From: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 7:42AM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>; Nathan Zweizig <NathanZ@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Pass the Draft Environmental Impact Report and expansion of exception P
Late Correspondence for Item No.1 under the Public Hearing section of the 9/17 City Council Agenda.
Thank you,
Octavio Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
octavios@rpvca.gov
(31 0) 544-5234
From: Peter Nopper [DJ_;;Jilto:pnopper@outlook.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 6:29 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: m[kenoQper@aol.com
Subject: RE: Pass the Draft Environmental Impact Report and expansion of exception P
Hello Octavia,
I actually do have a concern. At the PBCA HOA meeting on Monday night it was mentioned some of the Monk's developed lots
with very large driveways were creating excessive water runoff during a storm. It was also suggested by some people to write
the city and ask for the net lot coverage of RS-2 lots be reduced from 40% to 25%. I am asking that you do not make that
change on any revised drafts.
If there is concern about excessive runoff then it should be addressed on a case by case basis. My lot is a smaller lot (APN
7572-010-014), and the HOA requires a three car garage which increases the building roof size. If I have to reduce my net
coverage from 40% to 25%, then it would limit my reasonable sized house and hardscape plans. I already have conceptual
plans that exceed 25%.
1 I I am asking that the city leave the lot net coverage at 40% for RS-2 lots.
Thank you again for your time,
Peter
From: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 9:09AM
To: Peter Napper <Q!lopper(woutlook.com>
Subject: RE: Pass the Draft Environmental Impact Report and expansion of exception P
Hello Peter,
I've attached a copy of the City Council Staff Report for the updated Draft EIR related to proposed Zone 2 Landslide
Moratorium Ordinance Revisions.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Octavia Silva
From: Peter Napper <gnopper@outlook.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2019 11:01 AM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Pass the Draft Environmental Impact Report and expansion of exception P
Please accept this letter in support of passing the DEIR.
There is a group of self-serving individuals within the PBC HOA who would like to preserve open space next to their houses for
their own enjoyment. They have been abusing the city and rightful lot owners by forming a lobby to use the undeveloped lots
for their own enjoyment of open space. They have been doing this by making claims of hydraulic, geologic and traffic issues
that are completely unfounded and not backed by any scientific studies.
The true lot owners have not been able to exorcize their property rights due to this abuse. This is unacceptable. Our family has
been trying to build on our property for 10 years and I have the 2009 soils application to prove it. My father had a stroke right
before the 2014 City Council meeting to pass the EIR last time. He was not able to speak in defense of the city and EIR. He then
died three years later never being able to fulfill his dream of building on our lot. Selfish HOA members ofthe PBCA robbed him
of his dream by overwhelming the 2014 city council meeting to push their agenda.
The city of RPV has now made scientific studies for a second time in this current EIR draft. The studies still conclude it is
perfectly acceptable to build on the 31 undeveloped lots especially when following outlined mitigation measures. Please do
not let selfish neighbors who formed a lobby group coerce you into wasting city money again by not passing the EIR. That
would also be a second injustice to my family since 2014.
Thank you,
Peter Napper
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late carr
Teresa Takaoka
Thursday, September 12, 2019 8:08 AM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli
FW: August 22, 2019 Zone 2 DEIR
From: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 7:45AM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>; Nathan Zweizig <NathanZ@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: August 22, 2019 Zone 2 DEIR
Late Correspondence for Item No. 1 under the Public Hearing section of the 9/17 City Council Agenda.
Thank you,
Octavio Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Y\LWW .mvca. g ov
.Q.ctavios@rQvca. gov
(310) 544-5234
From: Jeremy Davies [mailto:jeremydavies2014@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 4:43 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com> <knightjim33@gmail.com>; Gordon & Claire
Leon <gordon.leon@gmail.com>; Dennis Gardner <dennisggardner@me.com>; kimnelson <kimnelson@cox.net>
Subject: Re: August 22, 2019 Zone 2 DEIR
Dear Octavio
On page 5 of the Staff report it is stated that "City Staff also met with members of the Portuguese Bend Community
Association (PBCA) on January 1 0". This needs to clearly state that the Staff met with residents who are also
members of the PBCA but that these individuals were not representing the PBCA but were providing their input as
individual residents".
Thank you.
Jeremy
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 9:21 AM Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello Jeremy,
1 I
I've attached a copy of the City Council Staff Report for the updated Draft EIR related to proposed Zone 2 Landslide
Moratorium Ordinance Revisions.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Octavia Silva
From: Jeremy Davies <jeremydavies2014@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 3:40PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com> <knightjim33@gmail.com>; Gordon & Claire Leon <gordon.leon@gmail.com>;
Dennis Gardner <dennisggardner@me.com>; kimnelson <kimnelson@cox.net>
Subject: August 22, 2019 Zone 2 DEIR
Dear Octavio
You sent an e-mail June 28 2019 to certain individuals of the PBCA along with sections of the latest
ADEIR. You also stated "As a result of meetings with the City it was stated that Staff would share sections
of the Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR) with individuals from the PBCA to collect feedback and ensure
that expressed comments/concerns have been addressed and or/identified. Based on an overview of the
comments submitted by PBCA members, for your review, I've attached draft copies of the ADEIR that
include the Geology, Hydrology & Water Quality, Traffic and Utilities and Service Systems sections. I've
also attached a reference document to the Utilities and Service Systems Section."
On July 17, 2019 a small group ofPBCA residents sent a number of concerns to the City on this earlier version of
the ADEIR. We asked as a service to assist us in tracking the changes incorporated as a result of our concerns that
the next DEIR be redlined to show the changes incorporated. This request was to facilitate both the identification of
the changes incorporated in response to our earlier extensive reviews and concerns and to speed up our review of the
updated ADEIR (August 22, 2019). This has not been done.
We would have assumed that you have identified, tracked and monitored the changes to the earlier ADEIR sent to
us. in June 2019. Please provide us a redlined version ofthe August 22,2019 DEIR showing the changes resulting
from our comments and concerns since the June version of the DEIR.
Many thanks
Jeremy
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, September 16, 2019 2:52 PM
CityCierk
FW: RPV City Council Agenda Report 9-17-19 Fire Fuel Modification
From: Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 2:51 PM
To: Alfred Visco <visco@linkline.com>
Cc: Susan Brooks <subrooks8@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: RPV City Council Agenda Report 9-17-19 Fire Fuel Modification
Forwarding from Alfred Viscounts at his request.
Re: reg Business item on Preserve.
s
Susan Brooks
Councilwoman
Rancho Palos Verdes
(Home) 310/ 541-2971
(City Hall) 310/544-5207
http:/ /rpvca.gov
I ~ the views or opinions expressed in this email are intended to be interpreted as the individual work
product of the author. They do not necessarily reflect an official position of the City Council, staff or other
entities.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 16, 2019, at 2:17PM, Alfred Visco <visco@linkline.com> wrote:
Susan
Once again I can not respond to your e-mail direct.
Thanks for your prompt response.
I know you agree with me that RPV has the same legal duty as any other real property owner i.e. not to maintain
its real property in a condition that is a public nuisance.
1
RPV's legal duty is not limited to just its inhabitants. The
8 .
Preserve in its present condition is a public nuisance which endangers the health, safety and property of
everybody in its immediate vicinity.
Also given the condition of the Preserve once a brush fire either starts in or reaches the Preserve it will literally
explode creating an immense amount of fire embers which will be spread far and wide and whatever "defensible
space" that is created around homes will be meaningless. Thus RPV's legal duty can not be satisfied by merely
creating "defensible spaces' around homes.
Whether I show up or not at the meeting does not change the foregoing facts and I am quite sure you are more
than able to express my concerns as set forth in this e-mail and my previous e-mail. I would also ask that you
forward our communication to all city council members and staff as soon as possible.
Alfred Visco
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late carr
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, September 16, 2019 9:09 AM
CityCierk; James O'Neill
FW: fuel breaks as wildfire protection
From: Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2019 11:15 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon
<esa ssoo n@ rpvca .gov>
Cc: Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; Allen Franz <afranz@PacBell.net>
Subject: fuel breaks as wildfire protection
Dear City Council and Staff:
Since the city is currently focusing so intently on fuel modification issues, I want to be sure that you are all aware of this article
recently published by the Los Angeles Times. It includes some expert opinion which I think is very important for any decision
making process.
https:/ /www.latimes.com/projects/wildfire-california-fuel-breaks-newsom-paradise/
Please also forward this email to James O'Neill. I could not find an email address for him on the city website.
I will submit personal comments regarding the Fuel Modification item on the September 17 agenda in a separate
communication to you.
Barbara Sattler
1 3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late corr item E
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Wednesday, September 11, 2019 11:46 AM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli
CityCierk
FW: Major Fire Risk. Portuguese Bend Rancho Palos Verdes
Agenda_Report.pdf; ATT00001.txt
From: Jim York <theyorkproperties@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 7:41 PM
To: Scot Snyder <Scot.Snyder@sce.com>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Sunshine <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Subject: Major Fire Risk. Portuguese Bend Rancho Palos Verdes
Scot
As you know we have granted SCE the necessary easements that your company has requested to underground the equipment
that has caused 5 fires the last 20 years including one the burned 250 acres on our property at 6001 Palos Verdes Drive South,
Rancho Palos Verdes. You have decided not to do this critical work
Please reconsider your decision. We do not want another major fire. SCE does not want to end up bankrupt like other
negligence utilities in California
Jim York
https:/ /rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&event_id=1289&meta_id=74622
1 8.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
LC
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, September 16, 2019 8:42 AM
CityCierk
FW: 9/17/19 Meeting Regular Business Item 3. Funding for Fuel Modification
From: Jim York <theyorkproperties@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 6:46 PM
To: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; ken.delong@verizon.net; Scot Snyder <Scot.Snyder@sce.com>
Subject: 9/17/19 Meeting Regular Business Item 3. Funding for Fuel Modification
The city council and city staff are doing a great job addressing this serious and continuing major risk of fires in our community.
Please approve the continuing funding.
Southern California Edison (SCE) is a significant contributor to the fire risk. They have been negligent in maintaining their
poles, wires and equipment(Equipment) They have been directly responsible for 5 fires on our 94 acre point view property in
Portuguese Bend during the last 20 years. SCE must contribute a substantial amount for fuel modification, especially around
their Equipment. They should also commit to underground the Equipment in the high fire risk areas.
Jim York
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hi Conrad,
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Saturday, September 14, 2019 11:43 AM
cburton@acwm.lacounty.gov
CC; CityCierk; Elias Sassoon; James O'Neill; dennisggardner@me.com; joanmc8921 @aol.com;
loisstark@aol.com; rmbstS@msn.com; idsloan@aol.com; clauderpv@hotmail.com;
professorohlaker@gmail.com; robert.cumby@cox.net; jcsmolley@cox.net;
bubblezann@aol.com; gardner4@earthlink.net
First example of a big acacia in the residential area of the active landslide
2019 RPV Cherryhill acacias -120.jpg; lnkedAb Cove Sunshine_LI 33.jpg
Attached is a graphic to help you locate one "Acacia shrub stand" (PVPLC's term) which concerns me from
a "who makes it go away, soonest" and a "who pays for having that done" point of view.
The tree trimmer who trimmed up the yucca, pepper and Catalina Cherry trees on my portion of the
Cherryhill Lane frontage gave me a quote of $1,000.00 to cut down, kill and remove all debris involved with
this one "stand".
So Cal Edison has come through and trimmed back the foliage which was touching or, close to touching
their power lines. They did not clear the foliage around the base of their poles. The other green dot, next
to the red dot on my scribble, is an acacia which is taller than I am.
Both "stands" are within 200 feet of the residential structure at 49 Cherryhill Lane. Both are more than
eight feet from the edge of the existing pavement. According to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes's GIS
position, both are on City-owned properties. The City committed to clearing only the roadsides (for fire
truck access) where the roadways have moved onto their GIS lots. See attached "lnkedAb Cove
Sunshine_LI 33". The residents (4) rather demanded that they stop trespassing on their front yards. (No
acacias present although there are several on the undeveloped roadsides marked on the City's map .. )
According to Lines of Occupancy, both are at least partially on privately-owned, undeveloped lots. Hence
the problem for LA County and the PBCA Board. We have lived in peace for decades based on Lines of
Occupancy because LA County's Inspectors have done the same. Have you or, the Fire Department sent
a notice to the Owner of Record of APN 7572-008-011?
Who should be contacting who at SoCal Edison about the acacia which is up against the utility pole?
1 ~.
Please, have them both removed. It is easier to battle out who pays before a wild fire than after.
I'll send you another example of a bad stand of acacias which is on an undeveloped lot from either a GIS or
Lines of Occupancy point of view, not City owned and not in the PV Nature Preserve.
Thank you for being willing to attempt to sort out how the residents of RPV's Landslide Moratorium Zone 6
are supposed to get our vacant lot owner neighbors and the City of RPV to comply with weed abatement in
a timely fashion.
Best regards,
SUNSHINE
6 Limetree Lane
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-377-8761
2
• 1 •
... I I-
.pI r -G.-f\il-eJ A \o c;v+e...,VI\ t----V\-\" .
~-H~f-fZ\{1-lJLL A~t-A o-F ~rv'
~
ci-ty~ 6 ton~ ~rc>fe.'<'+,-Ls f~~ 0 \ s
l~-tte:> of Occ.v<-f"'"'\c.(----f'oo.olwo,i_s
/_ 1 1\ e. s o ~ Oc c.u.. f"" "'-G-,Y et '1'. J "'f 1 \ 1 1y f e.d e.-;;
~\A.,~ j ~ t A c. cz <:_I C\.-:>
~-<Jexv+~C\._\ st (vtd u v-e.-s
Sc-f ,lQ\.:J\0 \o( '5lA)JS\-fl ~G Y /13 /zD\ cj
All Available Layer> -
Filter Layers ..
+ E2j Trails
0 Properties (2015)
0 City Owned Buildings
0 0 City Owned Parcels
0 Non Taxable Parc~s
+ f2l Recreations
+ bli NCCP
+ ~ Engine-ering Plans
+ ~ Civic Center {2018)
+ 0 Demographics
+ 0 Political Boundaries
+ !;!! Base Maps 1 Parcel
~ Aeria ls
+ 0 AdjacentCity
0 Aenals 2017
0 Aerials 2014
0 Aerials 2011
0 Aerials 2008
0 Aerials 2006
0 Aerials2003
::::;~rs
Q Filtt>r
L£.:.~@]
w'C:i'@
24
~-
Q
.. .,,
Tools