20191119 Late CorrespondenceDear City Council people,
AND MADE PARTTREMORr ATTHE
COUNCIL MEETING OF: II lt:\ lt:\ •
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLER
I'm standing here at front of you to remind you that there are unresolved issues
with GH. I don't know why no one cares and I know you just want us to "go away"
but as long as the issues stay, we'll keep coming ... honestly, I don't want to be
here either, just don't have much choice!
I noticed that there is no Compliance Review for GH scheduled in yo ur agenda for
the beginning of next year. There should be a yearly review of the compliance of
GH with the CUP. I'm looking forward to the GREEN HILLS COMPLIANCE REVIEW
in your Agenda for January or early February meetings.
Again, we still have the camera issue. We don't want our privacy further taken
away. Please, make sure, they are monitoring their property! I know, it 's hard,
because the Mausoleum is just 8 feet away, but still, something should be done. If I
can see the entire "eye" of the camera from my place, I'm on the video! Our
privacy if further violated.
And, again, I'm referring to the bushes on the south perimeter of the rooftop of the
Pacific Terrace mausoleum. According to the CUP "no other than ground cover
should be planted on the rooftop ofthe Pacific Terrace mausoleum". Yet, here we
have bushes standing and growing all the way on the south side of the mausoleum
rooftop.
When you overlook operations of the GH and allow them not to follow some of the
CUP, they go on violating with the rest of them! We all know the result of this.
See the pictures be low.
Thank you for your time ,
Nadia Georgieva,
Vista Verde owner, city council meeting Novemnber, 19'", 2019
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
NOVEMBER 19,2019
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No.
1
2
3
4
Description of Material
Corrections to Agenda Report; Email exchange between
Community Development Director Mihranian and Jim York; Email
exchanges between Senior Administrative Analyst Lozano and
Kathy Snell; Email from Kathy Snell
Revised Attachment B (Ordinance); Email exchange between
Community Development Director Mihranian, Senior Planner Silva,
Jeremy Davies and Gordon Leon; Emails from: Peter and Jennifer
Mendonca; Judith King; Peter Napper; Kathy Snell
Email from April Sandell
Email exchange between Public Works Director Sassoon and
Kathleen Fulmer; Emails from: Adrienne Mohan; Mickey Radich
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, November 18, 2019**.
Respectfully submitted,
L:\LA TE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\20191119 additions revisions to agenda.docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Katie Lozano
Tuesday, November 19,2019 12:25 PM
CityCierk
Ara Mihranian; Cory Linder
NCCP/HCP and Staff Report Edits Submitted through Late Correspondence
NCCP-HCP Edits Late Corr.docx
Staff would like to submit these changes to the NCCP/HCP and staff report as late correspondence.
Thank you,
Katie
1 I
Staff is submitting these four changes/corrections to the NCCP/HCP and staff report into the record.
1. References to Sections of the Municipal Code in the staff report and Section 6 of the NCCP/HCP
will be corrected using the following updated reference numbers:
• Title 8: Fire Code
• Section 17.70: Site Plan Review
• Section 17.72: Coastal Permit Process
• Section 17.76: Grading Ordinance
2. After the City Council approved the draft NCCP/HCP in March 2018, staff made a change to the
first bullet under Section 5.4.1 in response to a public comment. The underlined text was
removed. However, subsequently, staff realized that the text better communicated the intent of
the content without the modification. Staff is recommending that the language in the first
bullet under Section 5.4.1 remain unchanged, and the same as was approved by the City Council
in 2018. Below is the language that will remain under the first bullet under Section 5.4.1
(Operation and Maintenance).
• Landslide abatement and monitoring activities that do not result in the loss of Covered
Species and/or habitat. The regular maintenance and repair of existing drainage facilities
and Existing Preserve Roads or trails that accommodate authorized vehicles within the
Preserve that do not result in the loss of Covered Species and/or their habitat.
3. The last 2 paragraphs of NCCP/HCP Section 5.3.1 have been modified as shown below in tracked
changes for further clarification. (deleted text shown as red and strike-through and added text
shown as red and underlined)
• 5.3.1 Lower Filiorum Development
The Lower Filiorum property, also known as the Point View property, is 95 acres and
zoned single-family residential. Approximately 46.82 acres of the property are located
outside the City's Landslide Moratorium Area (LMA) and approximately 48.18 are
located within the LMA. The property is located within a portion of the plan area that
is considered essential for NCCP/HCP purposes to maintain Preserve connectivity and
was identified as a Regionally Important Habitat Linkage during Preserve planning and
design (EIR 2004). The width and the amount of area required for the creation of
functional corridors/linkages generally depends on many factors, including the target
species, surrounding land use and potential for detrimental edge effects, length of the
corridor, and 2 corridor habitat quality. Recommended corridor widths can range from
100-300 feet for plants and invertebrates, 200 feet to 1 mile for sensitive interior bird
species, to greater than 3 miles for larger predators (Bentrup 2008). In coastal
southern California NCCP planning, regional corridors are routinely planned to have a
minimum width of 1,000 feet (Bond 2003, MSCP 1997); however, such corridor
planning is also intended to provide for movement of larger mammals, such as mule
deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and mountain lion (Puma concolor), which are not
considered in this NCCP/HCP. Given the composition of species expected to occur
within the plan area and the wildlife species identified for coverage under the
NCCP/HCP, a 300-foot live-in corridor through the lower Filiorum property is expected
to be sufficient to maintain Preserve connectivity and viable populations of covered
species and other common local fauna.
The City-approved 2004 NCCP/HCP identified and required a 300-foot-wide, live-in
wildlife movement corridor be established along the eastern side of the property
within the lMA. The corridor to be conserved was part of an identified 40-acre
conservation obligation for developing the 95-acre Point View property. In 2003, the
Point View property was reported to be comprised of 70 acres of non-native
grassland, 2.5 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS}, 9.4 acres of disturbed CSS, 6.9 acres of
exotic woodland, and 5.2 acres of disturbed vegetation (NRC 2003). The required
minimum of 40 acres of dedicated Preserve included 1.5 acres to be provided as
mitigation for previous unauthorized brush clearing activities and 38.5 acres of
mitigation for CSS and grassland losses resulting from anticipated future development
of the 95-acre lower Filiorum parcel. Since 2004, the property owner proposed, and
the City approved in 2012, developmentl in the eastern portions of the lower
Filiorum property. This included approval to convert 25.5 acres of the property to
agricultural use, which required payment of $97,800 to the City; however, no
contribution to the wildlife corridor was established as part of the City's approval.
Although the project approval did not preclude the ability to establish a live-in wildlife
corridor elsewhere through the lower Filiorum property, the development of
agriculture, a golf course, and the event garden substantially reduces opportunities to
establish the wildlife corridor that was expected to be largely contained within the
boundaries of the lMA. Development of the area originally identified for a corridor,
along the eastern side of the property in the lMA, results in the need to establish a
wildlife corridor in an alternate location on the property to ensure functional Preserve
connectivity and meet the requirements of a NCCP.
Due to the importance of the lower Filiorum property as a regional linkage, specific
conservation goals and standards continue to apply under this NCCP/HCP. These
include establishing a functional, live-in wildlife movement corridor that maintains a
minimum 300-foot width and connects the Upper Filiorum Reserve to the Abalone
Cove Reserve. Establishing this corridor will require conserving approximately 58
percent of the remaining undeveloped 69.5 acres of the property in a contiguous
configuration. This would still allow for approximately 42 percent development of the
property that was not addressed in the 2012 approval, provided that the development
is consistent with and does not compromise the NCCP/HCP's conservation goals and
standards. Most importantly, future development could not preclude establishment of
the 300-foot-wide wildlife corridor for the City to still meet the requirements of the
NCCP/HCP. The final configuration of the wildlife corridor will be established through
future discussions between the landowner, the City, and the Wildlife Agencies. The
local fire authority will also need to sign off on a final design. For the purposes of the
NCCP/HCP, any type of man-made improvement, including agricultural land use
and/or a golf course, is considered development and would not count toward the
necessary on-site conservation or be acceptable for use as a live-in corridor. These
unnatural landscapes fail to provide the necessary resources for Covered Species to
successfully complete all life stages, including, but not limited to, breeding, nesting,
fledging, egg laying, and pupation. Sensitive species such as the gnatcatcher are not
commonly observed in human modified habitats (Crooks eta/. 2001), making it
necessary for the corridor to be comprised of native or naturalized vegetation (i.e.,
non-native grasses). If agricultural fields or other existing improvements are
abandoned and restored to natural habitat, they can be counted toward the
conservation and corridor requirement if those acres are arranged in an appropriate
overall configuration.
The conservation requirement outlined in the preceding paragraph will be established
on the Lower Filiorum property through mitigating for future development impacts on
site and/or through acquisition of the property by the City or PVPLC. Mitigation will
occur on site and contribute to the conservation and corridor requirement due to the
Lower Filiorum property's essential role as a movement corridor for Covered Species.
As indicated previously, the remainder of the Preserve has been assembled and
connectivity through the Lower Filiorum property is the lone remaining, but essential,
component for the NCCP/HCP and the Preserve conservation and connectivity goals.
Future development on the property will negatively impact covered species'
movement through the Preserve, creating greater impacts than development in other
portions of the Plan Area. To maintain connectivity and offset impacts, if a portion of
the remaining 69.5 acres of open space on the property is proposed for development,
a prorata share at a 1.4:1 ratio (conservation:development) will be required to be
conserved prior to initiation of construction activities. Mitigation will occur on site and
contribute to the 58 percent conservation and corridor requirement due to the Lower
Filiorum property's role as a key species movement corridor. The mitigation ratios for
the aggregate native grassland, non-native grasslands, and for CSS are comparable to
other Private Projects in the Plan Area and NCCP/HCPs. The mitigation ratio required
for impacts to habitat is consistent with other NCCP/HCPs and is necessary due to the
impacts of Covered Species that use habitat on the property directly or indirectly
through loss and fragmentation of habitat. In the event the above referenced
conservation goals for the required a wildlife movement corridor (afMI 58 percent
conservation of the remaining undeveloped 69.5 acres ) re~yiren:~eRt have been met
through acquisition of property er etl:ler dediGatieRs eR tl:le preperty, impacts on the
balance of the property prejeGt in:~paGts GaR may be mitigated through payment into
the City's in-lieu fee program. Any required fuel modification for future projects shall
not encroach into the conserved area; therefore, the corridor location/design will
need to be coordinated with the local fire authority.
4. The fuel modification map (Figure 5-1 below) will be modified in the NCCP/HCP to reflect fuel
modification along Vanderlip Drive in the area encircled. The City will work with the L.A. County
Fire Department and the L.A. County Agricultural Commissioners Office to establish the
appropriate fuel modification fo r this area .
logond
.FutiMOdNM
NCCP Presave
0 Subarea Plan Bouridory
L"]Jurisdktiooal s-d«y
•• .,.
(.~
'·-
'· Fed --------
Brush Managemen t in
Preserve for Fire Preventio n Purposes
FIGURE
[]]]
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim York <theyorkproperties@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 10:05 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: marybeth_woulfe@fws.gov; David Mayer <David.Mayer@wildlife.ca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore
<DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; mrsrpv@aol.com; Bradley_ 4_rpv_cc@earthlink.net; Katie
Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: NCCP/HCP Revision Lower Filiorum Property
Yes. I am available
Jim
Sent from my iPhone
>On Nov 18, 2019, at 9:56AM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
>
>Jim,
>
>Would you be available for a call today at 4:30 with the state and federal agencies to respond to some of your questions?
>
> Ara
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
»On Nov 16, 2019, at 1:28 PM, Jim York <theyorkproperties@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
»»Hi Ara, Mary Beth and Dave
>>>>
»»We have finally had a chance to read the staff report in detail for the City Council's consideration of the NCCP/HCP set for
Tuesday, November 19, 2019. We were disappointed that this staff report came out for public review only on Wednesday,
November 13. Having less than a week between the staff report and the City Council meeting is too short. We need to discuss
the new language so we can better understand it, and so we would like City Council to delay consideration of this item for at
least two weeks.
>>>>
»»We don't think two weeks is too much to ask. The City has been considering the NCCP/HCP for more than 15 years and it
has resisted our requests to revise the Lower Filiorum dedication language for years. At the eleventh hour, you've made many
significant changes and additions to the language, about our property, that's been used in various drafts of the NCCP/HCP
since it was circulated. While we appreciate that the agencies have finally made some important revisions, the sudden
changes have also raised a number of critical questions that need to be cleared up before the City can act on this. For
exam pie, the revised text doesn't explain what is considered "d~velopment" for the purposes of the 1.4 to 1 ratio of m itigatiol
•
to development. What does "development" include? Does the above draft mitigation study satisfy the new mitigation
requirements? Can fuel modification areas be considered part of the preserved area? (As Mary Beth previously suggested to
me, fuel modification areas with cactus plantings would be suitable as cactus wren habitat.) Why is the ratio 1.4 to 1, when
this ratio is not used anywhere else in the NCCP/HCP. A ratio of 1.4 to 1 seems arbitrary and excessive. In addition to that,
the staff report only shows changes to Section 5.3.1 of the NCCP/HCP. But the old language demanding a 40 acre dedication
for "any development" is sprinkled throughout the document, and so this change will need to be made in several other places
before it could be approved.
>>>
»> I'm attaching a conceptual sketch of what the 37-lot subdivision project might look like with a 1.4 to 1 ratio based on my
assumption that fuel modification zones may not be eligible as mitigation area (but as I note above, I don't agree that this
should be the case) and the "development" area would include residential properties, streets, sidewalks, and a 20-feet wide
fire clearance zones. If this sketch reflects your understanding of what that development could look like at a 1.4 to 1 ratio,
then we may be getting closer to resolution of this issue
>>>>
»»All of that said, I'm encouraged by the progress we've made toward the appraisal process and the agencies' expressed
interest in trying to secure funding to purchase 60-70 acres of our property at fair market value.
>>>>
»» Please hold off consideration of the NCCP/HCP by the City Council until we have had the opportunity to discuss as a group
>>>>
»>>Jim York
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Katie ,
Kathy <ksnell0001 @aol.com >
Tuesday, November 19, 2019 12:21 PM
Katie Lozano
CC; CityCierk; CityManager; Octavia Silva; ksnell0001 @aol.com
Re : Agenda NCCP/HCP
A ten foot weed abatement clearance from what was a private driveway is not adequate for the only evacuation route
during a fire storm with 8 ' mustard weeds growing annually next to the 1 0' wide clearance which you state.
Vanderlip Driveway is NOT a "roadway." It is a Driveway . Vanderlip Driveway needs to be protected like the
previous owners did for safe evacuation during a fire storm. The Pre-NCCP fire protection boundaries need to be
reestablished.
California now has usual droughts and fire storms since the Peninsula's 1973 fire which burned several houses off of
Vanderlip Driveway.
On Nov 19 , 2019, at 11 : 19 AM, Katie Lozano <KatieL @rpvca. gov> wrote:
Hello Ms . Snell,
Thank you for pointing out that the fuel modification zone adjacent to the East side of Vanderlip was
inadvertently not included in the map . Fuel modification is required by the LA County Fire Department to be
within 10 feet from any roadway . The map will be updated, and this change will be included in the
NCCP/HCP . An important point to make is that the City will adjust fuel modification areas at the LA County Fire
Department and County Agricultural Commissioner's direction as needed. The City will work with both
agencies to make sure fuel modification is appropriate in this area .
Moreover, the NCCP/HCP specifically states in Section 6.3 .1 that, "At no time will NCCP/HCP provisions take
precedence over the requirements of public health, safety, and welfare as determined by the Los Angeles
County Fire Department."
Please let me know if I can provide additional information,
1 I ...
Thank you,
Senior Administrative Analyst/Open Space Manager
Recreation and Parks Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
katiel@rpvca.gov
From: Kathy [mailto:ksnell0001@aol.com ]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 4:27 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca .gov >; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; CityManager <CityManager@rpvca .gov>
Cc: Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca.gov>; Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca .gov>; ksnell0001@aol.com
Subject: Agenda NCCP/HCP
City Council.
The new fuel brush management Map for Fire Prevention Purposes is inadequate for those escaping
from a potential fire driven by Santa Ana winds during low humidity for those trying to escape on
Vanderlip Driveway. Vanderlip is the only vehicle escape route for over 20 residences and horse
stable facilities. Fire rescue vehicles will not be able to enter if the brush catches on fire .
There is no red fuel modification designation on the map for the east side of lower
Vanderlip . The weed abatement distance from the driveway is not adequate. Weed abatement must
include the dry 8 ' high mustard weeds within 200 ' of the driveway as previous owners have done since
the 1973 Peninsula fire. If these weeds are not mowed every year and catch on fir e, Vanderlip
Driveway will become impassable due to smoke and fire. There are no other vehicle escape routes .
The previous owners of the properties , Filiorum and Hon, paid LA County to disc about 200 ' from the
North and East sides of Vanderlip Driveway on their properties to maintain a smoke and fire free
exit. Mrs. Vanderlip also provided much weed abatement on the North side of the driveway for her
dirt road which is now overgrown by weeds. The City of RPV stopped the County from doing this
very specific weed abatement many years ago due to wanting to place the area in the NCCP.
<imageOOl.jpg>
If the Preserve does not provide needed weed abatement for the new norm of fire prevention , the
entire Peninsula could erupt in gale force fire winds worse than the 1973 fire which burned my
property and many others.
RPV is the owner of the properties in question and can be held liable for fires that move from their
mustard weed ridden properties into residential areas .
Please keep the Peninsula safe and have the NCCP/HCP better address the newly observed fire issues
after the Paradise and Valley fires. The NCCP/HCP is not adequate and can place the entire Peninsula
in danger.
Respectfully ,
Kathy Snell
310-707-8876
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Kathy <ksnell0001 @aol.com>
Tuesday, November 19, 2019 11:25 AM
Katie Lozano
CC; CityCierk; CityManager; Octavia Silva
Subject: Re: Agenda 11/19/2019 NCCP/HCP Indian Wells Spring & Indian midden needs protection
Katie,
Prior to 2003, I was asked to show the then President of the Native Plant Society the head of the Indian Well
Spring. Her objective of discovering any new plant species growing along the spring. She concluded it would be
next to impossible to map the entire Spring due to the density of acacia that grew after the 1973 spread the acacia seed
pods. The density has increased substantially since then.
I find it hard to believe that the Indian Wells Spring was completely mapped within the Preserve and am requesting
copies of the mappings.
The Indian Wells Spring should have been covered as a resource in the NCCP/HCP and was not. The document is
incomplete.
Please do not give future City Council and staff members tools to
use to destroy Indian relics and water sources in the name of slide
abatement.
On Nov 19, 2019, at 10:51 AM, Katie Lozano <Katiel.lq2rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello Ms. Snell,
Thank you for your email. Vegetation in the Preserve was mapped in 2003, and is monitored annually
by the City's Habitat Manager, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC). Any landslide
abatement work would be subject to the Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures
detailed in NCCP/HCP Section 5.5. These provisions are enforced by the City in coordination with the
PVPLC for Preserve habitat protection. Protection of habitat or sensitive species would be addressed
through implementation of these measures.
Projects covered under the NCCP/HCP, including the Landslide Abatement Project, still
require California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis. While both CEQA and National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the NCCP/HCP addressed archaeological impacts, the
NCCP/HCP is too broad and non-specific to address all archaeological sites. When a specific landslide
abatement project is proposed, it will be assessed for CEQA compliance, including negative impacts
to archeological sites.
Please let me know if I can provide additional information.
Thank you,
1 / ...
Senior Administrative Analyst/Open Space Manager
Recreation and Parks Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
katiel@rpvca.gov
From: Kathy [mailto:ksnei!0001@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 10:12 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Agenda 11/19/2019 NCCP/HCP Indian Wells Spring & Indian midden needs protection
The Indian Wells Spring aka Kelvin Canyon Creek (East fork of Altamira Canyon) has been the only
annual water source in the area for the NCCP/HCP which the City claims to be protecting.
No one knows what rare plant resources may be found along the spring. If the spring was allowed to be
pumped dry, any undiscovered plants which may be growing along the spring could be lost forever.
How can native plants and animals be protected and not protect their water source? Indian Wells Spring
needs protection in the NCCP so the area where the spring surfaces is not disturbed and pumped dry
under "landslide abatement".
The Indian Midden at the head of the Indian Wells Spring may also be destroyed during landslide
abatement activities far away from the active slide. This should have been covered in the NCCP/HCP
to ensure the protection of the ruins. It is sad to see any disrespect of Indian ruins that can never be
replaced.
The NCCP/HCP is incomplete and should not be adapted at this time. The landslide abatement
activities is too broad. The Indian Well Spring, the Indian artifacts and ruins need protection from all
landslide abatement activities.
Please do not give future City Council and staff members tools to use to destroy Indian relics and
water sources.
Respectfully,
Kathy Snell
310-707-8876
2
From: Katie Lozano
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 8:49AM
To: 'ksnell0001@aol.com' <ksnell0001@aol.com>
Subject: Additional Information on NCCP/HCP
Hello Kathy,
Thank you again for talking with me last week on the phone. Here is the additional info I have found.
Impacts to private property owners:
• New development of private property that contains protected habitat (CSS): If a private property owner
engages in a new development project that involves the loss of protected habitat (CSS), that private property
owner would obtain their Incidental Take Permit through the City's NCCP/HCP, rather than obtaining their
permit through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife. Obtaining a permit directly through the City streamlines the process and results in cost savings for
the private property owner. This is a positive process to the property owner. The provisions ofthe
NCCP/HCP that would affect new development are contained in section 5.3.4 (Miscellaneous Private Projects
Throughout the City Outside of the Preserve} and Section 5.5 (Habitat Avoidance Minimization Measures}.
• Additional requirements apply to vacant lots that abut the Preserve and/or contain CSS. These additional
requirements are detailed in NCCP/HCP Section 5.7, and include requirements related to fencing and
lighting, equestrian use, landscaping, and stormwater and urban runoff. These would not apply to a
property that is already developed. The NCCP/HCP places no additional restrictions on private properties
that abut the Preserve, if those properties are already developed.
• You had specific questions on whether changing the location of your corral, growing your corral in size, or
adding on to your home would be impacted by the NCCP/HCP. You would only be impacted by the
NCCP/HCP if this development impacts protected habitat (CSS}. If it does, you may obtain your Incidental
Take Permit through the City, rather than the USFWS (this will result and cost and time savings to you}. It is a
positive process to you.
Fuel Modification
The NCCP/HCP would not impact your ability to conduct fuel modification on your property, even if your fuel
modification involved loss of protected habitat (CSS} as long as you are compliant with the City's CSS Ordinance
which allows, "Removal of CSS or any other form of habitat modification or weed abatement for the purpose of
fire protection, such as the establishment of fuel modification zones and fire breaks, thinning or brush clearing,
provided such actions follow a regulation, a written plan or a written order that is issued or required by the Los
Angeles County Fire Department or by another governmental entity."
Vanderlip Drive
I understand that you and your neighbors have very serious concerns that neighbor access to the portion of
Vanderlip Drive that is in the Preserve could serious impa: your lives and property value. The City has no intentio/.
of eliminating vehicle or neighbor access to this road. The NCCP/HCP requires that the City create a Preserve Access
Protocol within 90-days of NCCP/HCP permit issuance. If the City Council adopts the NCCP/HCP, staff will include
language memorializing neighbor and authorized vehicle (utilities, public safety, etc.) access to Vanderlip Drive in
the Preserve Access Protocol to be considered by the City Council in early 2020. Vanderlip Drive is a private street
that serves existing homes. The portion of the road that the City owns as part of the property it acquired for the
Preserve was never intended to disallow access to the surrounding homes. This will be reflected in the Preserve
Access Protocol.
Evacuation routes
There are currently no designated evacuation routes from the Portuguese Bend Community through the
Preserve. The possibility of evacuation routes through the Preserve will be evaluated during development of the
Preserve Access Protocol, and based on orders issued by first responders.
Indian Spring
I understand this spring runs across your land. Landslide Abatement Measures and dewatering wells are covered
projects under the NCCP/HCP. While the current landslide abatement project does not specifically include measures
to pump the Indian Spring dry, it does include measures to reduce ground water within the Portuguese Bend
Landslide complex. The NCCP/HCP would expedite the City's process to obtain a permit to conduct landslide
abatement activities.
I am attaching the revised figure 2-2 map which no longer shows your property as vacant. This is in the revised
NCCP/HCP. And I'm attaching the revised fuel modification map (figure 5-1}, which increased acreages for fuel
modification, in line with LA County Agricultural Commissioner and LA County Fire Department fuel modification
requirements.
OLD MAP:
2
REVISED MAP:
, ,.
l
l
' l ·' { .
'-~--,
·""' ·"
,.,. _..
-------FIGURE
Existing Land Use w i th~n Rancho Palos V erdes 12-2
3
lllfJend
Sing FumHyR
utti ·F..rnl R
Unknown
~NCCPTHC P PI'~ Pr(lp
1'. N 1nJJ Landi
t:J NCCP iC'P' Pla n BWndlry
L.""; jJurtSdl~ Boond'lry
OLD Fuel Modification Map:
-------FIG UR E
Existing Land Use w ith in Rancho Palos Verdes [TI
4
Logmd
•Fu OdAr
NCCP P~ iii e·
CJ SUletee PiOn Stuldety
Ci Juri:Sdletoof1a~ Boundery
REVISED Fuel Modification Map:
---~---
Brush Management tn
Preserve for Fire Preventio n Purposes
5
FIGURE
js-1
Lt ond
Fuel MOd
NCGPPte
c::J Subnre -Plen 13o.n1ary
CiJurllldldlon:al Bwnd.!ln'
,.
·" /
_)
<.. ..
. ·" _,, .,.-" / ,. ,.,
0 10. ---.----F
Brush Management in
Preserve for Fire Prevention Purposes
Please let me know if I can provide more information . I appreciated your time over the phone Thursday.
Thank you,
t'a tie-lozal(o
Senior Administrative Analyst/Open Space Manager
Recreation and Parks Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
katiel@rpvca.gov
6
i='IGURE
[]]]
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kathy <ksne ll0001 @aol.com>
Tuesday, November 19, 2019 12:05 AM
CityCierk
Octavia Silva
Fwd : Agenda NCCP/HCP
The picture of the 1973 fire boundary's was missing from the late correspondence.
Please note that the boundary's of the 1973 fire are a little greater than the Preserve . This picture is the best reason to
provide more weed abatement throughout.
Does the City own more land than they can safely protect? Does the City have additional insurance to cover the
liability?
How many areas of the RPV owned properties have homeless living in it?
Have the homeless been offered assistance?
If the Prese rve does not provrde needed weed abatement for the new norm of fi re preve ntion . th e entire Pemnsu la could erupt in gale force fire wrnds worse
than the 1973 fire which burned my prope rty and man y others .
RPV is the ow ner of the propertres rn questron and can be he ld liable for fires that move from therr mustard wee d ridden pr opertres .nto resldentral areas.
Pl€ase keep the Pe ninsula safe and ha ve the NCC P/HCP better add ress th e new1 y observed fire rss ues after the Pa rad rse and Vall ey fires The NCCPIHCP is not
adequate an d can place the ent ire Pen insu la in dan~er .
From: Kathy <ksnell0001@aol.com>
Date: November 18 ,2019 at 4:26:37 PM PST
To: cc@rpvca.gov, cityclerk@rpvca.gov , citymanager@rpvca.gov
Cc: KatieL@rpvca.g ov , octavios@rpvca.gov, "ksne110001@aol.com "
<ksnellOOO 1 @aol.com>
Subject: Agenda NCCP/HCP
City Council.
The new fuel brush management Map for Fire Prevention Purposes is inadequate for
those escaping from a potential fire driven by Santa Ana winds during low humidity for
those trying to escape on Vanderlip Driveway. Vanderlip is the only vehicle escape
route for over 20 residences and horse stable facilities. Fire rescue vehicles will not be
able to enter if the brush catches on fire. j
There is no red fuel modification designation on the map for the east side of lower
Vanderlip . The weed abatement distance from the driveway is not adequate. Weed
abatement must include the dry 8' high mustard weeds within 200' of the driveway as
previous owners have done since the 1973 Peninsula fire. If these weeds are not mowed
every year and catch on fire, Vanderlip Driveway will become impassable due to smoke
and fire. There are no other vehicle escape routes. /.
The previous owners of the properties, Filiorum and Hon, paid LA County to disc about
200' from the North and East sides of Vanderlip Driveway on their properties to
maintain a smoke and fire free exit. Mrs. Vanderlip also provided much weed
abatement on the North side of the driveway for her dirt road which is now overgrown
by weeds. The City of RPV stopped the County from doing this very specific weed
abatement many years ago due to wanting to place the area in the NCCP .
Legend
!=ufl MadAr
NCCP PmS«Ye
CJ SublitC!'Il Plan &:umry
L'JJutl~dloo<i Swnd.vy ---10.000
F ----
Brush Management in
Preserve for Fire Prevention Purposes
If the Preserve does not provide needed weed abatement for the new norm of fire
prevention , the entire Peninsula could erupt in gale force fire winds worse than the
1973 fire which burned my property and many others.
2
RPV is the owner of the properties in question and can be held liable for fires that move
from their mustard weed ridden properties into residential areas .
Please keep the Peninsula safe and have the NCCP/HCP better address the newly
observed fire issues after the Paradise and Valley fires. The NCCP/HCP is not adequate
and can place the entire Peninsula in danger.
Respectfully ,
Kathy Snell
310-707-8876
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, November 19, 2019 11 :43 AM
CityCierk
FW : Zone 2 EIR-Updated Code Language (Agenda Item No. 2)
Attachment B_Ordinance_Zone 2 Code Amendments.docx
Please use this email instead of Octavia's for late carr please .
Thank you
Teri
From : Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 11:26 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca .gov>
Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; William Wynder
<wwynder@awattorneys.com>; JuneS. Ailin <jailin@awattorneys.com>
Subject: Zone 2 EIR-Updated Code Language (Agenda Item No .2)
Mayor Duhovic and Members of the City Council,
Attached, as late correspondence, is a revised ordinance that updates the proposed code language to
Section 15.20.040(P) of the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance for your review.
Since the release of the Final EIR on October 31 51 and the agenda packet last week, Staff has received
numerous inquiries from the non-monks property owners expressing concerns with the proposed language
reducing the required lot coverage from 40% to 25%. The reason for this reduction was to minimize
impervious surfaces to address potential runoff and drainage concerns, while allowing reasonable
development to occur. Based on these inquiries, Staff reviewed the draft code language and felt that
although most property owners can develop their vacant lots with an approximately 4,500 sq. ft. residence
(as allowed per the Portuguese Bend Community Associations Architectural Standards) and a driveway at
a maximum 25% lot coverage, there should be flexibility to allow deviations for those rare cases. In light of
this, Staff is now adding text language that clarifies that a Minor Exception Permit or Variance may be
considered (as a discretionary application) to exceed the maximum 25% lot coverage requirements, as
described below (red text represents new language):
2. The construction of single-storv residential buildings with a maximum height of 16', as measured
pursuant to Section 17.02.040(8)(1)(c) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, and accessory
structures with a maximum height of 12', as measured pursuant to Section 17.48.050(0) of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code with a maximum lot coverage of 25% for RS-1 and RS-2 zoned lots, unless an
increase in the maximum lot coverage is permitted through the approval of a Minor Exception Permit or
Variance, and grading totaling less than 1,000 cubic yards of combined cut and fill and including no more
than 50 cubic yards of imported fill material on the 31 undeveloped lots in Zone 2 of the "landslide
moratorium area" as outlined in green on the landslide moratorium map on file in the director's office, and
which are not within the scope of subparagraph (1) above: provided that a landslide moratorium exception
permit is approved by the director, provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in Section
15.20.050 (Landslide Mitigation Measures Required) of this chapter and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program approved for the Environmental Impact Report related to the Zone 2 Code Amendments
for the non-monks lots (Case No. PLCA2018-0004). Such projects shall qualify for a landslide moratorium
exception permit only if all applicable requirements of
1
this code are satisfied, and the parcel is served b~ •
sanitary sewer system. Prior to the issuance of a landslide moratorium exception permit, the applicant shall
submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing
situation
If you have any question, contact me directly and PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO ALL.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
C ITY OF
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5228 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca .gov
www .rpvca .gov
~ Do you rea lly need to print th is e-ma il?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The
information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. It you rece1ved this email
in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES AMENDING CHAPTER 15.20 (MORATORIUM ON
LAND USE PERMITS) OF TITLE 15 (BUILDINGS AND
CONSTRUCTION) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND EXCEPTION CATEGORY 'P'
TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 31
UNDEVELOPED LOTS IN ZONE 2 OF THE CITY'S
LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM AREA.
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2009, the City commenced the processing of a Code
Amendment to Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of Title 15 (Buildings
and Construction) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to allow for the future
residential development of 31 undeveloped lots in Zone 2 of the City's Landslide
Moratorium Area (LMA) ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 2100 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and
Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR); and,
WHEREAS, on January 3, 2011, the City prepared an Initial Study (IS) and a
Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project, which were released to the public
and public agencies for review; and,
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, the City Council conducted a public scoping
meeting to provide a forum for agencies and members of the community to provide verbal
comments on the IS and NOP; and,
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2012, the Draft EIR was made available to the
public for review and subsequently the City Council conducted a public hearing on
November 7, 2012, in order to provide the public an opportunity to provide verbal
comments on the Draft EIR; and,
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2014, the Final EIR was completed and released to the
public for review. The City Council conducted public hearing on April 15, 2014, May 6,
2014 and June 17, 2014, to allow additional time for the public to submit comments related
to the EIR and proposed project, as well as, to allow staff and its consultants to address
additional comments made by the public and any issues raised by the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2014, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the
Final EIR and after considering evidence introduced into the record, tabled the
01203.0023/614137.1
certification of the Final EIR and the adoption of the proposed Zone 2 Landslide
Moratorium Ordinance Revisions; and,
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2018, the City re-initiated the environmental review
process for the proposed Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions with the
circulation of an NOP, which provided for a 30-day public seeping period. The City re-
initiated the process to amend the City's Landslide Moratorium to allow for the future
development of 31 undeveloped lots in Zone 2 of the City's LMA. Several properties in the
Zone 2 had been residentially developed or were in the process of being developed and
the City sought to assess how changed conditions affect the surrounding environment.
The City also re-initiated the process in response to litigation filed by a group of property
owners in Zone 2 seeking to develop their properties; and,
WHEREAS, after the NOP comment period ended, the Updated Draft EIR was
prepared taking into account comments that were submitted during the public seeping
period and a Notice of Availability (NOA) was issued by the City on August 22, 2019,
which informed State and local agencies, interested parties and the public that the
updated Draft EIR was available for review, and providing for a 45-day public comment
period, which ended on October 7, 2019; and,
WHEREAS, the IS included in the Updated Draft EIR that was prepared in 2011
as part of the original environmental review for the Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium
Ordinance Revisions. The IS project description reflected the 4 7 lots that were
undeveloped at that time. It also reflected the CEQA Guidelines environmental checklist
that was in place at that time. Although the IS was not updated when the new NOP was
released in 2018, the recirculated Draft EIR reflects both the current number of
undeveloped and unentitled lots (31) and new relevant issues (such as Tribal Cultural
Resources) that are included in the current CEQA Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2019, the City Council conducted a public hearing
in order for the City to receive public oral comments regarding the Updated Draft EIR;
and
WHEREAS, on October 31, 2019, the Community Development Department
issued a notice informing the public that the Final EIR would be available for review on
November 1, 2019. The notice was provided via mail to property owners in and within a
500-foot radius of Zone 2 and was published in the Peninsula News on October 31, 2019.
A notice of the meeting was also provided by email to interested parties through the City's
list-serve message system for this project, and posted citywide on the City's Nextdoor
social media page. The notice also informed the public that a public hearing was
scheduled with the City Council on November 19, 2019 to consider certification of the
Final EIR and approval of the proposed code amendment; and,
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2019, the Final EIR was made available on the City's
website and hardcopies of the documents were also made available to the public at the
01203.0023/614137.1 Ordinance No.
Page 2 of 6
locations specified in the notice, including but not limited to, City Hall and the Hesse Park
Community Center; and,
WHEREAS, at its November 19, 2019, meeting, the City Council held a duly-
noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to
be heard and further present evidence regarding the proposed Code Amendment, the
Final EIR and the responses to the comments received regarding the Draft EIR; and,
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have been
met.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council has reviewed and considered the amendments to
Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of Title 15 (Buildings and Construction)
of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
Section 2: The City Council finds that the amendments to Chapter 15.20
(Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of Title 15 (Buildings and Construction) of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan
in that they uphold, and do not hinder, the goals and policies of those plans, in particular
to balance the rights of owners of undeveloped properties within Zone 2 of the City's
Landslide Moratorium Area to make reasonable use of their properties while limiting the
potential impacts resulting from such use upon landslide movement, soil stability and
public safety within and adjacent to the Landslide Moratorium Area.
Section 3: The City Council further finds that the amendments to Chapter 15.20
(Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of Title 15 (Buildings and Construction) of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code are comparable, with added development criterion and
mitigation measures, to the development potential that has been afforded to the 16 Monks
Plaintiffs' Lots located in Zone 2 of the City's Landslide Moratorium Area in that they will
allow for the future development of 31 undeveloped lots in Zone 2 of the City's Landslide
Moratorium Area with new, single-family residences and ancillary site improvements.
Thus, the City Council finds that the amendment achieves parity with the rights enjoyed
by the owners of the developed lots in Zone 2 of the City's Landslide Moratorium Area
and achieves parity with the rights enjoyed by the property owners of the 16 Monks
Plaintiffs' Lots in Zone 2 of the Landslide Moratorium Area.
Section 4: The City Council further finds that there is no substantial evidence
that the amendments to Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of Title 15
(Buildings and Construction) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code would result in
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of such effects,
with the exception of significant and unavoidable impacts related to Traffic and Circulation
(specifically, with respect to Intersections, Roadway Segments, and Temporary
01203.0023/614137.1 Ordinance No.
Page 3 of 6
Construction Impacts). The City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report, made
certain findings related to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring
Program for Planning Case No. PLCA2018-0004 prior to making its decision regarding
the code amendments contemplated herein, as evidenced in Resolution No. 2019-_,
adopted by the City Council on November 19, 2019.
Section 5: The City Council further finds that the amendments to Chapter 15.20
(Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of Title 15 (Buildings and Construction) of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code are necessary to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare in the area.
Section 6: Based upon the foregoing, Section 15.20.040 (Exceptions) of
Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of Title 15 (Buildings and Construction)
of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (added text
identified in bold/underline):
P. 1.:. The construction of residential buildings, accessory structures, and
grading totaling less than 1, 000 cubic yards of combined cut and fill and
including no more than 50 cubic yards of imported fill material on the 16
undeveloped lots in Zone 2 of the "landslide moratorium area" as outlined
in green on the landslide moratorium map on file in the director's office,
identified as belonging to the plaintiffs in the case "Monks v. City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, 167 Cal. App. 4th 263, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 75 (Cal.
App. 2 Dist., 2008)"; provided, that a landslide moratorium exception
permit is approved by the director, and provided that the project complies
with the criteria set forth in Section 15. 20.050 (Landslide Mitigation
Measures Required) of this chapter. Such projects shall qualify for a
landslide moratorium exception permit only if all applicable requirements
of this code are satisfied, and the parcel is served by a sanitary sewer
system. Prior to the issuance of a landslide moratorium exception permit,
the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical
studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate
the existing situation.
2. The construction of single-story residential buildings with a
maximum height of 16', as measured pursuant to Section
17.02.040(8)(1)(c) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, and
accessory structures with a maximum height of 12', as measured
pursuant to Section 17.48.050(0) of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code with a maximum lot coverage of 25% for RS-1 and
RS-2 zoned lots, unless an increase in the maximum lot coverage is
permitted through the approval of a Minor Exception Permit or
Variance, and grading totaling less than 1,000 cubic yards of
01203.0023/614137.1 Ordinance No.
Page 4 of 6
combined cut and fill and including no more than 50 cubic vards of
imported fill material on the 31 undeveloped lots in Zone 2 of the
"landslide moratorium area" as outlined in green on the landslide
moratorium map on file in the director's office, and which are not
within the scope of subparagraph (1) above; provided that a
landslide moratorium exception permit is approved by the director,
provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in
Section 15.20.050 (Landslide Mitigation Measures Required) of this
chapter and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
approved for the Environmental Impact Report related to the Zone 2
Code Amendments for the non-monks lots (Case No. PLCA2018-
0004). Such projects shall qualify for a landslide moratorium
exception permit only if all applicable requirements of this code are
satisfied, and the parcel is served by a sanitary sewer system. Prior
to the issuance of a landslide moratorium exception permit, the
applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical
studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed project
will not aggravate the existing situation.
Section 7: Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause
or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any
reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining
sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this
ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council
declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph,
sentence, clause, and phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more
sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof
be declared invalid or unenforceable.
Section 8: Certification and Posting. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance
to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage,
in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City
Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause
this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the
Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.
Section 9: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect at 12:01AM on the
31 51 day after its passage.
Section 10: After the effective date of this Ordinance, it shall apply to all
Landslide Moratorium Exception permits and any subsequent development applications
for the 31 non-Monks lots in Zone 2 submitted on or after the effective date of this
Ordinance.
01203.0023/614137.1 Ordinance No.
Page 5 of 6
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 3rd day December 2019.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, EMILY COLBORN, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify
that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the
foregoing Ordinance No. passed first reading on November 19, 2019, was duly
and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held
on , 2019, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
City Clerk
01203.0023/614137.1 Ordinance No.
Page 6 of 6
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Octavia Silva
Tuesday, November 19, 2019 8:08AM
CityCierk
FW : EIR and Mitigation Measures
Late correspondence related to Agenda Item No. 2
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 . g ov
(310) 544-5234
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 10:32 PM
To: 'Jeremy Davies' <jeremydavies2014@gmail.com>
Cc: Gordon Leon <gordon.leon@gmail.com>; Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca .gov>; Dennis Gardner
<dennisggardner@me.com>; Claudia Gutierrez <c lauderpv@hotmail.com>; j <joanmc8921@aol.com>; Monika Bauer
<rmbst5@msn.com>; kim nelson <kimnelson@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com> <knightjim33@gmail.com>;
IDSioan@aol.com
Subject: RE: EIR and Mitigation Measures
Jeremy,
The requirement remains at 25% lot coverage, and most property owners wi ll be able to comply.
However, there may be instances that additional coverage is needed and the proposed amended language all ows that
flexibi lity but with discretion .
Meaning the City can further review and add conditions, if, and onl y if, the required findings can be made.
It is a reasonable amendment, especially when the existing properties in Zone 2 can increase their lot coverage up to 40%.
The Cit y is holding to the 25% lot coverage requirement, but is clarifying that it can be increased with a Minor Exception Permit
or Variance (wh ich is allowed throughout the city prov ided the find i ngs can be made ).
Ara
P.S. this email will be provided to the City Counci l as late correspondene .
From: Jeremy Davies [mailto :jeremydavies20 14@gmail.com ]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 7:59 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <A r aM@rpvca .gov >
Cc: Gordon Leon <gordon.leon@gmail.com >; Octavia Silva <Oct avioS@rpvca .gov >; Dennis Gardner
<dennisggardner@me .com >; Claudia Gutierrez <clauderpv@hotmail.com >; j <joanmc89 21@ aol.com >; Monika Bauer
<rmb st5@msn.com >; kim nelson <kimnel son@cox .net >; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com > <knigh t jim 33 @gm ai l.com >;
IDSioan@aol.com
Subject: Re: EIR and Mitigation Measures
1 d. Ara
A "minor exception" it is not if you increase from 25% to 40% for example. You reduced to 25% as a mitigation
measurement to reduce storm water runoff impact as I recall. You should hold to the 25% as agreed.
Jeremy
On Mon, Nov 18 , 2019 at 1:21 PM Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Gordon,
Because a LME is required to allow the submittal of planning applications, it is imperative that the code,
under Section 15.20.040, explicitly state what applications are allowed to be submitted.
A Minor Exception Permit or Variance, are both discretionary applications, that allows the City to apply
stricter conditions to address concerns on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the Code under Section
15.20.040 may not cite specifically permeable driveway, but if someone is asking for more lot coverage
than 25%, that is something the City can consider through the planning entitlement process.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
C ITY OF
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5228 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
2
J; Do you really need to pr int this e-mai l?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The
information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination , distribution , or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email
in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistan ce and cooperation.
From: Gordon Leon <gordon.leon@gmail.com >
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 12:29 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov >; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov>
Cc: Jeremy Davies <jeremydavies2014@gmail.com >; Dennis Gardner <dennisggardner@me .com >; Claudia Gutierrez
<clauderpv@hotmail.com >; j <joanmc8921@aol.com >; Monika Bauer <rmbstS@msn.com >; kim nelson
<kimnelson@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com > <knightjim33@gmail.com >; IDS ioan@aol.com
Subject: Re: EIR and Mitigation Measures
Octavio and Ara,
I understand the need for development codes to be somewhat flexible. Is the proposed language in the current RS 1
and 2 lot coverage requirements? Can't applicants get a variance or minor exception permit without adding
language? If we must have this language , then I strongly suggest that any additional coverage be permeable. I
suspect that the most likely hardship would be from fire department requirements and driveways which can all be
permeable hardscape. Turf blocks should be encouraged so that we don't have a sea ofun-landscaped, paved area.
Thanks for your consideration.
Gordon Leon
On Mon, Nov 18 , 2019 at 10:11 AM Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Good Morning,
As you may already know, on November 191h, the City Council will consider the certification of the Zone 2
EIR along with proposed Code Amendments to Exception Category 'P' of the City's Landslide
Moratorium Ordinance. The City Council staff report that was issued last week included staff-
recommended code amendment language that would allow for the development of the 31 undeveloped
Zone 2 lots with specific development criteria, which includes a lot coverage maximum of 25% for RS-1
and RS-2 zoned properties.
3
Staff is proposing modified code language (see below) in order to provide avenues by which lot coverage
on the 31 undeveloped lots can be further increased beyond 25% through City permit processes. The
modified language would be presented tomorrow to the City Council by Staff for consideration as late
correspondence. I'm sharing the language with you in order to address any questions or concerns that
you may have ahead of the meeting.
2. The construction of single-story residential buildings with a maximum height of
16', as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(8)(1)(c) of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code, and accessory structures with a maximum height of 12', as
measured pursuant to Section 17.48.050(0) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code with a maximum lot coverage of 25% for RS-1 and RS-2 zoned lots, unless an
increase in the maximum lot coverage is permitted through the approval of a Minor
Exception Permit or Variance, and grading totaling less than 1,000 cubic yards of
combined cut and fill and including no more than 50 cubic yards of imported fill
material on the 31 undeveloped lots in Zone 2 of the "landslide moratorium area" as
outlined in green on the landslide moratorium map on file in the director's office, and
which are not within the scope of subparagraph (1) above; provided that a landslide
moratorium exception permit is approved by the director, provided that the project
complies with the criteria set forth in Section 15.20.050 (Landslide Mitigation
Measures Required) of this chapter and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program approved for the Environmental Impact Report related to the Zone 2 Code
Amendments for the non-monks lots (Case No. PLCA2018-0004). Such projects shall
qualify for a landslide moratorium exception permit only if all applicable
requirements of this code are satisfied, and the parcel is served by a sanitary sewer
system. Prior to the issuance of a landslide moratorium exception permit, the
applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies
reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city
geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation.
Please forward any questions by tomorrow morning or feel free to contact me at (31 0) 544-5234 at your
earliest convenience to further discuss.
Thank you,
Octavia Silva
From: Jeremy Davies <jeremydavies2014@gmail.com >
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 3:56 PM
To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca .gov >; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov >; Dennis Gardner <dennisggardner@me.com >;
Claudia Gutierrez <clauderpv@hotmail.com >; j <joanmc8921@aol.com >; Monika Bauer <rmbstS@msn .com >; kim nelson
<kimnelson@cox .net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com > <knightiim33@gmail.com >; Gordon & Claire Leon
<gordon.leon@gmail.com >; IDSioan@aol.com
Subject: EIR and Mitigation Measures
4
Dear Octavio,
This is a bit late, but may I suggest the City reviews each mitigation measure and determines whom within the city
(or the department) is responsible for ensuring implementation happens. Also establish frequency of review. This
will help residents and lot owners go to the City efficiently in the event they have issues on implementation.
Have a great weekend.
Jeremy
Gordon Leon
310-463-9244
5
From:
Sent:
To:
Octavia Silva
Tuesday, November 19,2019 1:02PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions Final Environmental Impact Report
Late Correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2
Octavia Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
'f:iWW.rpvca.gov
octavios@rpvca.gov
(31 0) 544-5234
From: Jen Mendonca [mailto:jpm41189@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 12:48 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; peter nopper <peternopper@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions Final Environmental Impact Report
Dear Octavia,
Just wanted to confirm that our attorney Bob Crockett's letter to the city was in response to the comments made by
Jim Knight, Cassie and Gordon Leon at the public hearing for the DEIR. He does not want any more studies done
and supports the FEIR report as written. Ara is aware of this as welL Thank you for all the work you have done and
for your patience in answering the group's questions and concerns.
Peter & Jennifer
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 5:19PM Jen Mendonca <jpm41189@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear City council members,
I agree with the staff report to certify the FEIR. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank Ara, Octavia, and Rincon
consultants for their hard work and dedication to get the FEIR back on the table.
Could you please add the following letter from our attorney Bob Crockett to the FEIR staff report that will go out on the
November 19 1h city council meeting. He represents us lot owners in Zone 2 and has addressed every concern brought up by
Jim Knight, Gordon Leon and Cassie Jones during the last public hearing on the DEIR.
I would also like to bring to your attention that Gordon Leon has approached some of us lot owners to buy our lots at a very
low price. I request the city council to bear this in mind, when you make your decision. We bought our non monk lot in 2013,
as I have mentioned in my earlier letters and have been trying to build a home on my lot since then. The decisions made by
the city council so far has contributed to a lot of stress for families like ours. We have been renting since 2013 with the hope
that we will be able to build our house on our lot some day. I urge the city council to make a fair and unbiased decision at the
{), Nov 19th public hearing and give us our basic right to build and live in a home that we own.
1
Thank you,
Jennifer & Subhash Mendonca
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 3:41 PM Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello,
On October 31, 2019, the Community Development Department issued a notice informing the public that the City
Council will conduct a public hearing at its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, November 19, 2019 to
consider the certification of an updated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Code Amendment related to
residential development in Zone 2 of the Landslide Moratorium Area. A copy of the notice has been attached for
your records.
Please note that the notice also informs the public that the FEIR will be available for review on Friday, November 1,
2019 on the City's website at:
http://www .rpvca. gov 11140/Zone-2-Non-Monks-Lots
If you have any questions, please contact me at the information listed below.
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
(31 0) 544-5234
2
3
From: Octavia Silva
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, November 19, 2019 8:10AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: FEIR approval
Late correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2
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: dendrochick@aol.com [mailto:dendrochick@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 12:01 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FEIR approval
Dear City Council members,
I approve the most recent FEIR, especially if the modification Octavia recommended is included" unless an increase in the
maximum lot coverage is permitted through the approval of a Minor Exception Permit or Variance, ".
Thank you,
Judith A King
30 Sweetbay Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
1
From: Octavia Silva
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, November 19, 2019 8:07 AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: FEIR meeting tomorrow night
Late Correspondence related to agenda item No. 2
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 [mailto:pnopper@outlook.com]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 8:27 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Jennifer Jones <nonmonks@yahoo.com>
Subject: FEIR meeting tomorrow night
Ara,
We had our group meeting tonight and we have unanimous support for the FEIR with the addition
which is in red below. There are a couple of concerned people with small lots, so the addition in red
was just what we needed to sell the FEIR. We made it dear that everyone is to support this at the
CC meeting exactly as written without adding any other comments to complicate the issue so we can
pass it tomorrow night.
Code with a maximum lot coverage of 25% for RS-1 and RS-2 zoned lots, unless an increase in the maximum
lot coverage is permitted through the approval of a Minor Exception Permit or Variance, and grading totaling
less
We thank you for all the hard work you have done. We also hope you are having the same luck selling
this on your end to the people who may have objected to the DEIR. They asked for a large concession
from 40/'o to 257o but we also see sound reasoning for that request and have accepted it. I believe
any other objection to the FEIR tomorrow night would simply be to try and delay its passing.
Thank you again,
Peter Nopper
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
City Council,
Kathy <ksnell0001 @aol.com>
Monday, November 18, 2019 8:28 PM
CC; CityCierk
Octavia Silva; Katie Lozano; ksnell0001 @aol.com
Final EIR for Zone 2, Agenda 11/19/2019
When Dr. Elig formulated his Zone maps for building within moratorium area for RDA, all residences, including 100
Vanderlip, and the houses on Narcissa northeast ofVanderlip, were placed in Zone 2.
Since the map was drawn incorrectly and carried forward for years, why wouldn't all of the parcels on Vanderlip
Drive be in Zone 1 as the other properties are? Is the geography different?
What is the difference between Zone 1 vs Zone 2?
Please be aware that the stability of #6, 10, 20 and 60 Vanderlip Driveway far exceeds the stability of all other lots
which are open for building in Zone 2. Mr. Dyda helped formulate the benefit assessment 40 years ago which
included 1 unit for per acre based on future building if not developed. Is it time those be allowed to have lot splits
and build after paying A CLAD assessments? If not, how many more years will we have to pay or should the benefit
formula be changed since we are not benefiting? The fees for lot splits have skyrocketed since 1985 when " .. .lot
splits were put on hold for 6 months .. until ACLAD was able to slow the slide."
Isn't it time for the City to allow lot splits to one unit per acre on Vanderlip before the State steps in with their
own dense zoning?
The EIR is incomplete as lot splits for Vanderlip Driveway were not discussed and the Zone 2 map is incorrect.
Thanks, Kathy Snell
310-707-8876
1 !J.
lege"1d
I:.~ Project S01Jndaty
-Vacant or Und.erdeveloP«!. ~ ooll jly
Dev~IOpable unde r Propo$ed Ot'dlnance
Rev~na
N
A
2
()
l
2i0 580f
l
Figure 2·
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, November 19,2019 2:16PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Drone surveillence via contract w/ Edison + Pontevedra Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes
Late carr item 3
From: April Sandell <hvybags@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 2:05 PM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Drone surveillence via contract w/ Edison+ Pontevedra Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes
Good afternoon Mr. Sassoon,
Yesterday, there was some city business happening on Pontevedra Dr. The worker told me they had a
contract with Edison to fly camera drones over the area. I hope prior to the drone flying overs residents
receive timely warning notice.
If you have all the information, please provide me further insight on the particular "contract" as well as
collected data intended use?
I don't know if this is plan for a one time happening or if residents can expect regular events, like once a
month, once a year, daily? I just don't know. And I am not certain who the "worker" worked for,
Edison or the City ofRPV.
Moreover, as you may be aware today City Council Agenda Item #3. Property lien, which is
apparently the result of data gathered by advanced (tools) in technology.
I don't need to know today ..... but sometime this week would be appreciated.
Thank you so much.
April L. Sandell
1
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ms. Fulmer,
Elias Sassoon
Tuesday, November 19, 2019 8:33 AM
katiefulmer@aol.com
CC; CityCierk; James O'Neill; Ara Mihranian
FW: Brush clearance and fire prevention
Thank you for your email expressing concerns with brush clearance. Your email will be included in the late correspondence
regarding this agenda item.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC}, the habitat managers for the Preserve, is requesting grant funding
from the City Council to remove non-native acacia shrubs from certain areas of the Preserve. The City Council will be
considering the PVPLC's request at its upcoming Tuesday, November 19, 2019 meeting, and the areas around Oceanfront
Estates are discussed on pages 3 and 4. You can review the staff report on the City's website at the following link:
https://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=1293&meta id=77009
If the City Council approves the PVPLC's request, the removal of acacia from the area will go a long way towards addressing
your concerns. According to PVPLC's proposal, work can be completed in 6-8 weeks, so we would anticipate such work would
be completed by mid-January, depending on when work is started. Additionally, Cris Sarabia of PVPLC stated that they will also
address areas of mustard that he discussed with Lisa Levine and another board member when they met a few weeks ago, but
that would be after the acacia removal project.
Additionally, the City is working with the County Department of Agriculture to identify appropriate methods for fuel
modification, including clearing and/or thinning of areas that are within 200 feet of structures.
As visitors smoking along the trails-while no smoking/open flames is signaled at all Preserve trailheads, the City will direct
deputies and staff to pay special attention to smoking (and evidence of smoking) in this area for prioritized enforcements, and
to assess extra signage needs. The City really appreciates being notified in real time of violations, especially smoking
violations, so we can try to respond immediately. If you see smokers, staff would greatly appreciate you reporting the activity
and location the City's Preserve Information and Reporting line at (310) 491-5775. Staff takes smoking violations very
seriously.
Your concerns are a top priority for the City, and we believe that the actions identified above will address those concerns.
If you have any further questions, or would like to discuss this further, please contact James O'Neill at (310) 544-5247 who is
copied on this email.
Respectfully,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax:310-544-5292
1
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kathleen Fulmer <katiefulmer@aol.com>
Date: November 15, 2019 at 7:04:47 PM PST
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Brush clearance and fire prevention
Attn: Mayor and City Council Members
I am a longtime resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, and my home is located in Ocean Front
Estates next to the Vicente Bluffs Reserve. The Ocean Front development is surrounded by
overgrown dead brush, both in the preserve areas along Palos Verdes Drive and along the
bluff. This dead brush is highly flammable and poses a very real fire threat to our homes and
the residents who live here. I urgently request that the brush abatement of the surrounding
areas be funded and executed. Additionally, this area receives a lot of foot traffic and I have
seen many people smoking as they are walking. More 'No Smoking' signs need to be
displayed in the area, especially along public trails.
Thank you.
Kathleen M. Fulmer
57 Paseo del Ia Luz
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: 310-377-4660
Fax: 310-377-9928
2
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, November 19, 2019 2:15 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Acacia Removal Information
Late carr
From: Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 2:05 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Acacia Removal Information
Hello City Councilmembers,
I look forward to presenting an update about the Acacia and mustard removal efforts and the successful removal of
these species under the grant funds awarded to the Conservancy this fall. We will be completing the work before
Thanksgiving!
Our team has been busy mapping the extent of Acacia in the Preserve. So far, we have mapped about 110 acres of
Acacia in the Preserve, but have not yet mapped Malaga or Vista del Norte Reserves. This total includes some
Preserve-adjacent areas (Acacia that spreads contiguous into the Preserve) such as the Coast Guard property at City
Hall, the HOA properties in Ocean Front Estates. We intend to complete the initial field mapping effort over the next
few weeks. This acreage includes mono-cultures of Acacia as well as areas where Acacia is densely mixed in with
native plants.
With the 23 acres of Acacia removed under the first RPV grant, this evening we will be requesting support to address
an additional 32 acres of Acacia as well as 15 acres of mustard, which would successfully eradicate nearly half the
Acacia from the Preserve (55 acres to be removed).
Please let me know if you have any other questions or key concerns, and I would be happy to address them tonight.
Thank you,
Adrienne
Adrienne Mohan
Executive Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
916 Silver Spur Road #207
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
www.pvplc.org
(31 0) 541-7613 x203
(31 0) 930-4332 (cell)
Preserving land and restoring habitat (or the enjoyment and education of all.
Join our mailing list
Join us on
1
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, November 18, 2019 6:03PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Council Meeting of 11/19/19 -Item #4
Late corr
From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 6:03 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Council Meeting of 11/19/19 -Item #4
It would be prudent if our City Council would have all larger grants go as
RFP's through the Public Works Department. They are more qualified and
experienced and that gives the City better control of these expenditures. Also
as I said previously, the same applies to City Departments. They should not be
handling the RFP's.
1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
NOVEMBER 18, 2019
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, November 19, 2019 City Council meeting:
Item No.
c
D
G
1
2
4
Description of Material
Updated Attachment A (Agreement w/ DCA Civil Engineering Group, Inc)
Email from Sunshine
Email exchange between Staff and April Sandell
Emails from: Jim York; Kathy Snell; Sunshine
Emails from: Jim Knight; Sunshine; Cathy Gardner; Neil Siegel;
Jennifer and Subhash Mendonca; Jeremy Davies; Jesus Gutierrez;
Maria Gutierrez; Robert Naylor; George and Leanne Twidwell; Andrea
Joannou; Melinda Politeo
Email exchanges between Public Works Director Sassoon and: Fred
Bruning; Jerry Sicherman and Jane Stewart; Lisa Levine; the Dessy
family; Email exchange between Project Manager O'Neill, Cris
Sarabia, and Adrienne Mohan; Emails from: Larry Carapellotti;
Kathleen Fulmer; Kathy Snell; Richard and Darcy Kopcho; Jim York
Respectfully submitted,
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\20191119 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Good morning,
Nasser Razepoor
Monday, November 18, 2019 8:36AM
CityCierk
Ron Dragoo
PSA for Crest Road Storm Drain Project -Late Correspondence
Attachment A -PSA.pdf
Attached, please find the updated contract for this project, Item Con the agenda for 11/19/19 CC meeting, to be included as
late correspondence.
Please let me know if there are any questions.
Thanks,
Nasser Razepoor, PE
Associate Civil Engineer
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5307
1 C.
CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
By and Between
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
and
DCA CIVIL ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
01203.0006/61 4898.1 1
AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND
DCA CIVIL ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (herein "Agreement") is made and
entered into this . day of . 2019 by and between the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, a California municipal corporation ("City") and DCA Civil Engineering
Group, Inc., a California corporation ("Consultant"). City and Consultant may be referred to,
individually or collectively, as "Party" or "Parties."
RECITALS
A. City has sought, by issuance of a Request for Proposals, the performance of the
services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement.
B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal or bid for the performance of the
services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement, was selected by the
City to perform those services.
C. Pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, City has authority
to enter into and execute this Agreement.
D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of
those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that
the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.
OPERATIVE .PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by
the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are
hereby acknowledged, the patiies agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT
1.1 Scone of Services.
In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall
provide those services specified in the "Scope of Services" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the "services" or
"work" hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement, Consultant
represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to
properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and
professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated
herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability,
experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it shall
follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder
and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose intended. For
purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "highest professional standards" shall mean those
01203.0006/614898.1
standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work under
similar circumstances.
1.2 Consultant's Proposal.
The Scope of Service shall include the Consultant's scope of work or bid which shall be
incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any
inconsistency between the terms of such proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this
Agreement shall govern.
1.3 Compliance with Law.
Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder
in accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and any
Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is
rendered.
1.4 Califm·nia Lnbm· Law.
If the Scope of Services includes any "public work" or "maintenance work," as those
terms are defined in California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. and California Code of
Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq., and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more,
Consultant shall pay prevailing wages for such work and comply with the requirements in
California Labor Code section 1770 et seq. and 1810 et seq., and all other applicable laws,
including the following requirements:
(a) Public Work. The Parties acknowledge that some or all of the work to be
performed under this Agreement is a "public work" as defined in Labor Code Section 1720 and
that this Agreement is therefore subject to the requirements of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1
(commencing with Section 1 720) of the California Labor Code relating to public works contracts
and the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR")
implementing such statutes. The work performed under this Agreement is subject to compliance
monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Consultant shall post job site notices, as prescribed by
regulation.
(b) Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall pay prevailing wages to the extent
required by Labor Code Section 1771. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1 773 .2, copies of the
prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any
interested party on request. By initiating any work under this Agreement, Consultant
acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) determination of
the prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Consultant shall post a copy of the same at each job
site where work is performed under this Agreement.
(c) 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 wages. The
Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar
() 1203,0006/614898, l 2
day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the
DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to
this Agreement by Consultant or by any subconsultant.
(d) Payroll Records. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the
provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Consultant and each subconsultant to:
keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as
specified in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as
provided by Section 1776; and inform the City ofthe location of the records.
(e) Apprentices. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions
of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7 and California Code ofRegulations Title 8,
Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects.
Consultant shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all
apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Consultant shall
provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program.
Within sixty (60) days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant and each of
its subconsultant shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice
hours performed under this Agreement.
(f) I~ight-Hour Work Day. Consultant acknowledges that eight (8) hours labor
constitutes a legal day's work. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code
Section 1810.
(g) Penalties fot· Excess llpurs. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by
the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess
hours. The Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each
worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Consultant or by any
subconsultant for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work
more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day and forty ( 40) hours in any one calendar week
in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code.
Pursuant to Labor Code section 1815, work performed by employees of Consultant in excess of
eight (8) hours per day, and forty (40) hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public
work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than one
and one-half(1 'h) times the basic rate of pay.
(h) Workers' Compensation. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700
provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its
employees if it has employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code
Section 1861, Consultant certifies as follows:
"I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require
every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of
this contract."
0 1203.0006/614898, l 3
Contractor's Authorized Initials ~
(i) Contractor's Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor
who will perform work under this Agreement, Contractor shall be responsible for such
subcontractor's compliance with Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720)
of the California Labor Code, and shall make such compliance a requirement in any contract with
any subcontractor for work under this Agreement. Contractor shall be required to take all actions
necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor's compliance,
including without limitation, conducting a review of the certified payroll records of the
subcontractor on a periodic basis or upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to
pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Contractor shall diligently take
corrective action to halt or rectify any such failure by any subcontractor.
1.5 I4iccnses, Permits, .Fees and Assessments.
Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals
as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement.
Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus
applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary
for the Consultant's performance of the services required by this Agreement, and shall
indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any
such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City
hereunder.
1.6 J?amiHadty with Work.
By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly
investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered
how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and
restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve
work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or
will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services
hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will
materially affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform
the City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant's risk until written instructions
are received from the Contract Officer.
1. 7 Care of Work.
The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to
furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents,
plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be
responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City,
except such losses or damages as may be caused by City's own negligence.
1.8 Further Responsibilities of Parties.
01203.0006/541532.1 4
Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective
obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all
instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry
out the purposes of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible
for the service of the other.
1.9 Additional Services.
City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services to amend the
Agreement to add, deduct, or alter the services beyond those specified in the Scope of Services.
In the case of additional services, no such services may be undertaken unless an amendment to
the Agreement is first executed between the City and the Consultant, incorporating therein any
adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the additional services, and/or (ii) the
time to perform this Agreement. Any amendment for additional services must be approved by the
City Manager or by the City Council, in accordance with Chapter 2.14 of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code. It is expressly understood by Consultant that the provisions of this
Section shall not apply to services specifically set forth in the Scope of Services: Consultant
hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to be provided pursuant to the
Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than Consultant anticipates and that
Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor. City may in its sole and
absolute discretion have similar work done by other Consultants. No claims for an increase in the
Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the procedures established in this
Section are followed.
1.10 Snecial Re<Jui.-ements.
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 "W' and incorporated
herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of E~h!.Pit "B'' and any
other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit "B1
' 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 $139,877.00 (One Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand Eight
Hundred Seventy Seven 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
0 1203"0006/614898.1 5
specified in the Schedule of Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the
performance of sub tasks, (b) contract retention is maintained, and (c) the Contract Sum is not
exceeded; or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation.
2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.
Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for
reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in
advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.5,
and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the
attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City.
Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If
Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant
shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings.
2.4 Invoices.
Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice for all work performed
and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by City's Director of
Finance. By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying
compliance with all provisions of the Agreement. The invoice shall contain all information
specified in Exhibit "C', and shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the
following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and sub-
contractor contracts. Sub-contractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant
shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person.
City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine
whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this
Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant
which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will use its best efforts to cause
Consultant to be paid within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Consultant's correct and
undisputed invoice; however, Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run
procedures, the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the
event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City
to Consultant for correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice
provided by the Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided
herein or any applicable law.
2.5 Waiver.
Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be
deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.
ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
3.1 Time of Essence.
0 1203,0006/614898.1 6
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
3.2 Schedule of Pcrfor·mancc.
Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a
written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in
the "Schedule of Performance" attached hereto as Exhibit ''D" and incorporated herein by this
reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time period(s) specified in the
Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer but not exceeding
one hundred eighty (180) days cumulatively.
3.3 Force Majeure.
The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the
services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to
unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant,
including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather,
fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes,
wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant
shall within ten (1 0) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in
writing ofthe causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of
delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when
and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer's
determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall
Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of
this Agreement, however caused, Consultant's sole remedy being extension of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section.
3.4 Term.
Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement
shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding one year
from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit
"D"). City may, in its sole discretion, extend the Term for one additional one-year term.
ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK
4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant.
The following principals of Consultant ("Principals") are hereby designated as being the
principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the
work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:
Steve Cummins. PE
(Name)
01203.0006/614898, I 7
CEO I President
(Title)
Chris Herrera. MPA
(Name)
Project Manager
(Title)
It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the
foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.
Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for
directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the
services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be
under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the
foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced
by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize
only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall make
every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant's staff and
subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement.
Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant's staff and subcontractors, if any,
assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any such
performance.
4.2 Status of Consultant.
Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation,
debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless
such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in
writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or
any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers,
employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant's officers, employees or
agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may
otherwise accrue to City's employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may
have to any such rights.
4.3 Contract Officer.
The Contract Officer shall be Ron Dragoo, City Engineer, or Nasser Razepoor, Associate
Civil Engineer, or such person as may be designated by the City Manager. It shall be the
Consultant's responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of
the performance of the services and the Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made
by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required
hereunder shall mean the approval of th~ 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 lndcncndent Consultant.
Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or
means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except
as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or
control of Consultant's employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing their number,
01203.0006/614898. J 8
compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an
independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent
contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any
time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees
of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of
Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any joint enterprise
with Consultant.
4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting m· Assignment.
The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and
employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore,
Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services
required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. In addition, neither this
Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or
encumbered voluntarily or by operation of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise,
without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the
transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty five percent
(25%) of the present ownership and/or control of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on
a cumulative basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy
proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No approved transfer shall release the Consultant or
any surety of Consultant of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City.
ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
5.1 Insurance Coverages~
Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of
any services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own
expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts
described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
(a) General liability insuran~~· 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 liabili!y 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.
01203"0006/614898, l 9
(c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall
maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be perfonned 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 ofthis
Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than
three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement.
(d) Workers' compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers'
Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer's Liability Insurance (with limits of at
least $1 ,000,000).
(e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds
under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated
herein.
(f) Additional Insut+mce. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required
in the Special Requirements in Exhibit "B".
5.2 General Insurance Reguirements.
(a) Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to
City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation
endorsement for workers' compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be
approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification
of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any
time.
(b) Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the
duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to
property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services hereunder
by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants.
(c) Primruy/noncontributiqg~ 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) Citl 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.
0 1203' 0006/614898.1 10
(e) Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance
company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance
or that is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an
assigned policyholders' Rating of A-(or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger)
in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by
the City's Risk Manager.
(f) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured
pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or
appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow
Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to
waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery
against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of
its subconsultants.
(g) Enforcement of contract provisions (non-estormel). Consultant
acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform
Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the
City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
(h) Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or
limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other
requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific
reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given
issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other
coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums
shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained
by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of
insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
(i) Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or
broker and insurers to provide to City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for
nonpayment for which a ten ( 1 0) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each
required coverage.
G) 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 undi~closed cover~ge limitations. None of the coverages
required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting
endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
(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
() 1203.0006/614898.1 11
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 th.rough clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants,
subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in
the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements
required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes
all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements
of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants,
subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
(n) Agency's right to revise speci:ftcations. The City reserves the right at any
time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by
giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change
results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate
Consultant's compensation.
(o) Self;.insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to
and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated,
lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these
specifications unless approved by City.
(p) Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant's performance
under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required
liability policies.
( q) Additional insm·ans;;s:. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be
necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.
5.3 Indemnification.
To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") against, and will
hold and save them and each of them hrumless 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:
01201.0006/614898. I 12
(a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any
of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and
attorneys' fees incurred in connection therewith;
(b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its
officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection
with the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of
Consultant hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and
employees harmless therefrom;
(c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to
any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims
arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform the work,
operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers,
agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or
employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys'
fees.
Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if
it fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and
failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall not be a waiver hereof. This
indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, eiTor or
omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional
services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring
as a result of City's sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent
permitted by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City's negligence,
except that design professionals' indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities
arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The
indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive
termination of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION
6.1 Records.
Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of
accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the
disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the "books and records"), as
shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract
Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete
and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all
times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make
records and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three
(3) years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such
records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant's business,
custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by
Consultant's successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall fully
01203,0006/614898, l 13
cooperate with the City in providing access to the books and records if a public records request is
made and disclosure is required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records
Act.
6.2 Reports.
Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports
concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer
shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost of
work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant agrees
that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or
will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein or, if
Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant shall
promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the
estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design
services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed.
6.3 Ownership of J)ocumcnt.s.
All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes,
computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the "documents and materials")
prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this
Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the
Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim
for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full
rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use,
reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted
documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will he at the City's sole risk
and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant's guarantee and warranties shall not extend to
such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use.
Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein. All subcontractors shall
provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event
Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages
resulting therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents and materials that may
qualify as "works made for hire" as defined in 17 U .S.C. § 101, such documents and materials
are hereby deemed "works made for hire" for the City.
6.4 Confidc.ntiality 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 not,
without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City
0 1203.0006/614898.! 14
Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at
depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed
under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary"
provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
(c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of
Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City
shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and
fees, including attorney's fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant's conduct.
(d) Consultant shall promptly notifY City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice
of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any patiy regarding this Agreement and the work
performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be
present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully
with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests
provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean
the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION
7.1 California Law.
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to
performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions
concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be
instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or any other
appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal
jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District
Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California.
7.2 Disputes; Default.
In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall
not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed
after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the
reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the
default. This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not
reduced, if circumstances wan-ant. 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.
01203,0006/614898, 1 15
7.3 Retention of Funds.
Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant
(whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in
dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or
damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by
reason of Consultant's acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant's
obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount
or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear
to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for
interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of
City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of
the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.
7.4 Waiver.
Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this
Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any
party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other
provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement.
Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of
the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by
a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a
waiver. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of
any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
7.5 Rights and Remedies arc Cumulative.
Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this
Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party
of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or
different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the
other party.
7.6 Legal Action.
In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in
equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel
specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain
any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary
provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections
905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.
7.7 Liquidated I>amagcs.
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
01203.0006/614898.1 16
this Agreement, the Contractor and its sureties shall be liable for and shall pay to the City the
sum of Zero dollars ($0.00) as liquidated damages for each working day of delay in the
performance of any service required hereunder. The City may withhold from any monies payable
on account of services performed by the Contractor any accrued liquidated damages.
7.8 Termination Priot· to Expiration of Term.
This Section shall govern any termination of this Contract except as specifically provided
in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this
Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Consultant,
except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be
such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. In addition, the Consultant
reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon sixty (60)
days' written notice to City, except that where termination is due to the fault of the City, the
period of notice may be such shorter time as the Consultant may determine. Upon receipt of any
notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as
may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Except where the Consultant has initiated
termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to the
effective date of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer
thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the
Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the event the Consultant has initiated
tem1ination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the
work product actually produced hereunder. In the event of termination without cause pursuant to
this Section, the terminating party need not provide the non-terminating party with the
opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.
7.9 Termination for Default of Consultant.
If termination is due to the failure of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this
Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7 .2, take over the work
and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable
to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the
compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable effmts to mitigate
such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off
or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.
7.10 Attorneys' Fees.
If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any
action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such
action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or
equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's
fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other
reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other
necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be
deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or
not such action is prosecuted to judgment.
() 1203.0006/614898,1 17
ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND ElVlPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION
8.1 Non .. liability of City Officct·s and Employees.
No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any
successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which
may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation ofthe terms
of this Agreement.
8.2 Conflict of Interest.
Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall
acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests
of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant's performance of services under this
Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person
having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor
without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times
avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City
in the performance of this Agreement.
No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in
this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the
Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation,
partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any
State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay
or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.
8.3 (;()vennnt Against Discrimination.
Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons
claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of,
any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual
orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class in the performance of
this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed
and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed,
religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other
protected class.
8.4 Unauthorized Aliens.
Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., as amended, and in connection
therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ
such unauthorized aliens for the performance ofwork 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.
01203, 0006/61489R I 18
ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
9.1 Notices.
Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either party
desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either
served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager
and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of Rancho
Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 and in the case of
the Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of this
Agreement. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of
address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in
seventy-two (72) hours from the time ofmailing if mailed as provided in this Section.
9.2 lntcrnrctation.
The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the
language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of
this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.
9.3 Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.
9.4 lntcgrntion; Amendment.
This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive
expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements
between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels
any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between
the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification
of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by
the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be
waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.
9.5 Scverabilitv.
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 Warrantv & Representation of Non-Collusion.
01203.0006/614898.1 19
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 detennination of
"financial interest" shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be
"remote" or "noninterests" pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant
warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party
including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration, or
other thing of value as a result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement.
Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s),
omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money,
consideration, or other thing of value to any third party including, but not limited to, any City
official, officer, or employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or being awarded any
agreement. Consultant is aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other
conduct resulting in such payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render
this Agreement void and of no force or effect.
Consultant's Authorized Initials~
9.7 Cor·uorate AuthoritY.
The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such
party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this
Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally
bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not
violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall
be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE)
01203.0006/614898,1 20
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on
the date and year first-above written.
ATTEST:
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
William W. Wynder, City Attomey
CITY:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
municipal corporation
Jerry V. Duhovic, Mayor
CONSULTANT:
By: __ ~~--------------------
Name: Charles Steve Cummins, PE
Title: President I CEO
By: }1g.;j.¢t14.. C. ~
N arne: Barbara Cummins
Title: Corporate Secretary
Address: 17625 Crenshaw Blvd .• Suite 300
TotTance, Califomia 90504
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required
from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2)
Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT'S
SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE
INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR
OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT'S BUSINESS ENTITY.
01203.0006/541532.1 21
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
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On \ \ [l \ , 2019 before m~~'lft~. 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 foregoin
true and correct.
WITNESS m
Notary Public-California ,.
Los Angeles County liZ
Commission# 2230314 -
My Comm. Expires Feb 28, 2022
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
0 INDIVIDUAL
~ CORPOz· RATI:1 OFFICER
P.~~-_,("""".J!O~---
0
0
0
0
0
0
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) 0 LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHE~-----------------------
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: DAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)) c~c,~!l_s~~
01203.0006/541532.1
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
~~
_65_'""'--""'"--·-··-····-.. -NUMBER OF PAGES
_lll.Jl] 2.0 \"-->.....4 -
DATE OF DOCUMENT
~.o..v~ ~'tV'\\ ~s
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
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On _U)_JJ__, 2019 before m~~, personally appearcctl?a.vkm. ~tJ6proved 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.
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
~ CORPORATEOFFICpR
~~ ~et:..V"<:...-~1...-J
TITLE(S)
0
D
D
0
0
0
01203.0006/541532.1
PARTNER(S) 0 LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHE~--------------M---------
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
35
NUMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
CJ\Ct(~ eu.~
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. Consultant will perform the following Services:
Consultant shall design a needed new storm drain system including pipes/catch basins
and the connection to an existing storm water system that outlets into a natural canyon.
The Services will include surveying, geotechnical investigation, drainage and hydraulic
analysis, pipeline and catch basins design, and preparation of the construction documents.
Background and Smmi!.ill:Y
Within the City, there are three drainage issues regarding storm water run-off flow from
Crest Road (East of Crenshaw Blvd.) to Crestridge Canyon (on Crestridge Road East of
Meadowdale Lane). The first issue is flooding in the sump condition on Crest Road
(Approximately at St. John Fisher Driveway) which overflows from the street, down the
slope and yard at 28916 Crestridge Road causing erosion and property damage. The
second issue is that the storm water out1etting from the Crest Road drain to Crestridge
Road (at the 28916 property) is located in a manner that directs water northerly, across
the road into the driveway of another private property. The third issue is that the Crest
Road storm water that remain in Crestridge Road, combines with other drainage area
runoff and then proceeds easterly/northerly/westerly on the steep and curving roadway.
The quantity and velocity of this flow causes the water to overflow into driveways on the
outside of the streets curves on its way to the sump condition at Crestridge Canyon storm
drain.
Consultant shall prepare construction documents necessary to resolve the three flooding
issues at this location. The scope Consultant's work will be to perform engineering
analysis and provide design engineering plans, specifications and an engineer's cost
estimate for the construction of the project.
Summary of th~ Tasks
• Perform survey, and review existing records, and field inventory with the design
team.
• Provide utility notification letters and clearances from all utility companies during the
design phase. Resolve any potential conflicts with existing utilities.
• Perform hydraulic analysis for the entire system.
• Develop a schematic design and a geotechnical evaluation report.
• Develop detailed design drawings, including calculations for hydrology, hydraulics,
sedimentation production, foundations and structural elements of the design, along
with construction notes, special provisions, technical specifications, and engineer's
estimate.
01203.0006/614898.1 A-4
• Provide support during bid and permitting process.
• Develop all final project deliverables and as-built drawings.
• Update project Survey and Master Plan of Drainage.
• Attend meetings including project kickoff meeting, committee and progress meetings
(selection of design concept, design ideas presentation, etc.)
Services by Task
A. Task 1 -Survey and Document Review
Consultant will conduct research and review the existing plans and documents of record
for storm drains, streets, utilities, property easements, hydrology maps, and other
information which may be available. This information will then be included on the
construction document drawings. Consultant will conduct and prepare field topographic
surveys of the project areas that may require construction modifications for resolution of
the flooding issues. Conceptual ideas derived from initial meetings and discussion with
the City will determine the extent of the topography information needed. Due to the need
for more precise vertical elevation information, an on-the-ground survey will be
conducted rather than an aerial survey.
Researched underground utilities will be plotted/labeled on the topographic survey and
checked against observed culture (manholes, valve covers, etc.) Driveway "High-Point"
elevations along Crestridge Road will be obtained. Enough centerline monumentation
information at project areas to determine property line locations based on record map data
will be included.
Utilizing the previously prepared "Master Plan of Drainage'\ field verifications & other
plan documents, Consultant will prepare a hydrology map of the areas contributory to the
project area. Using this hydrology area map, Consultant will prepare a hydrology study to
determine the storm water quantities (Qcfs) and concentration locations which reach the
project areas.
Using a sub-consultant, Consultant will provide a video of the existing pipe between
Crest Road & Crestridge Road and at the Crestridge Canyon between Crestridge Road
and existing drainage channel to the North. This information will be shared with the City
to determine if these pipes are usable.
B. Task 2 -Schematic Design and Hydraulic Analysis
Based on conceptual discussions and information obtained, Consultant will prepare
schematic preliminary design plans, and meet with the City to discuss the preliminary
design plans prior to moving ahead to preliminary construction plans. This is to include
any mitigation needed for additional run-off into Crestridge Canyon.
Upon acceptance of the preliminary design plans by the City, Consultant will prepare
hydraulic analysis for the entire system from Crest Road to Crestridge Canyon existing
01203.0006/614898.1 A-5
channel. This will include calculations of depth of flow and velocities on Crestridge
Road. It will also include an investigation of the northerly outlet end of the Crestridge
Canyon channel and impact it may (or may not) have on the community.
Using a sub-consultant, Consultant will obtain a collection of necessary geotechnical data
and subsequent analysis in support of design of stormwater facility structures, channels or
pipes, and prepare a report describing the analysis and supporting design
recommendations.
C. Task 3 -Preliminary Design
Consultant will prepare preliminary construction drawings based on the approved
schematic design and hydraulic analysis. The preliminary design will include the location
and sizing of all improvements anticipated to resolve the flooding issues while
minimizing any downstream impacts. Consultant will attend a 30% review meeting with
the City at this phase of the design development. This will include a preliminary
Engineer's cost estimate for construction as prepared in Microsoft Excel format.
D. Task 4 -Detailed Design and Engineer's Estimate
Consultant will prepare a complete set of construction plans to City's specifications with
sheets prepared using AutoCAD in plan and profile style for pipe segments, or structural
detail style for structures at appropriate scale in 24" x 36" format. Details and notes shall
incorporate all City required items and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES") requirements with details (including but not limited to those listed below) as
necessary to construct.
The Construction Plans shall include the following details:
• Pavement thickness when excavation through pavement is required;
• Location of all utilities, buried and overhead;
• Location ofvegetation;
• Property, boundary, and easement delineations;
• Topographic base map with appropriate elevation intervals;
• Existing storm drain facility dimensions and locations;
• Items to be protected in place;
• Restoration plans for disturbed areas;
• Trench and backfill details;
• Erosion and sediment control plans;
01203.ooo6t614898.1 A-6
• Limits of pipe replacement sections;
• Limits of soil disturbance with area calculations;
• Location and limits of repair area and any staging areas authorized by the City;
and
• Approximate depth to repair areas.
All plan sheets for bidding and construction shall be appropriately stamped by an
experienced Civil Engineer (or other appropriate discipline, e.g. Geotechnical Engineer)
registered in the State of California and include a line for City approval by the Director of
Public Works in the signature block. All plans shall be delivered to the City in both
printed and electronic formats. Electronic submittals shall include .pdf and .dwg files and
shall be compatible with the City's GIS system.
Prepare final Engineer's cost estimate for construction of each location. Estimates will be
delivered to the City both in printed and electronic format. Estimates shall be prepared in
Microsoft Excel format.
Consultant will prepare project specifications including:
• Cover Page and Table of Contents;
• Notice Inviting Bids;
• Instructions to Bidders;
• Proposal (Bid) Pages;
• Contract Pages;
• Special Provisions (including technical specifications); and
• Exhibits and Appendices necessary to convey design intent.
The City will provide standards and examples of these documents for use by Consultant.
Specifications will be delivered to the City both in printed format and on CD. All bid
documents (except Plans) shall be prepared in Microsoft Word format.
Specifications for this project shall contain requirements consistent with the provisions of
the NPDES, the Clean Water Act, and the latest Edition of the APWA Green Book.
Consultant shall obtain environmental clearances, if needed.
Any other computer generated documents, including reports, modeling files, plans, and
calculations, will be submitted on CD in a format acceptable to the City. Consultant will
participate in the constructability review when asked by the City.
01203.0006/614898. I A-7
Consultant will develop the Special Provisions section of the bid package by combining
project-specific special provisions with the City's Special Provisions. Project Plan Sheets
will be referenced in the Bid Documents as an attachment. The assembled Bid Document
Package will be provided to the City in both printed and electronic format (i.e., .pdf,
Microsoft Word, and AutoCAD, as appropriate).
E. Task 5 -Bid and Construction Support
Consultant will perform a bid analysis to include the following. After bids are opened,
Consultant will perform comparative analysis of bid items for four lowest bids with
engineer's estimate. Consultant will confirm bid accuracy and submission of all required
bid documents of apparent low bidder to determine lowest responsive bidder. Consultant
will identify lowest responsive bidder.
Consultant will provide engineering support during construction phase including but not
limited to verification of contractor's layout survey to design documents, response to
RFI's, evaluation of value engineering or change orders, preparation of record drawings
("as-builts"), etc. The construction management and inspection services are not currently
part of this scope and will be awarded separately.
F. Task 6-Meetings
Consultant will attend, in person, regular meetings with City staff during the design phase
as needed or requested by the City. City anticipates these design-era meetings will be
needed at the following times, at minimum: Kickoff, 30% Review, 60% Review, and
90% Review. Consultant will conduct additional phone conferences as needed.
Consultant will attend pre-bid meeting and provide clarification of design intent,
limitations to reliability of information, and potential construction constraints as
requested by potential bidders.
II. As part of the Servjces, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible
work products to the City.
A. 30% Design Repor!. 30% Design Report will include results and findings of data
review verification data (GPS coordinates and elevations), GIS layers, hydrologic
and hydraulic analyses, modeling input and output files, topographic survey,
geotechnical analyses, and conceptual plans for repairs at each location. The 30%
Design Report shall be provided in electronic and hardcopy format and include
any sub-consultants' technical reports.
01203,0006/614898, I
Consultant will work with the City's GIS personnel to review available GIS data
and discuss details to identify data structure and unique or potential layers'
attributes prior to project execution. Data inconsistencies will be resolved by
Consultant. Once completed, the geodatabase or layers will be added and
incorporated into the City's current GIS system. All data generated by this scope
of work shall be property of the City. Consultant agrees that no part of the data
may be reproduced, or stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form
whether electronic, mechanical, or otherwise, without the City's prior written
A-8
consent; however, the Consultant is authorized to make backup copies ofthe data
solely for archival purposes.
All data will also require creating the geo database or layers from As-Built plans
(to be provided), then adding and incorporating them into the City's current GIS
system. The City will provide the As-Built plans for this scope of work.
Consultant will review these plans and assist in adding it to the GIS system.
B. 60% Design Report. 60% Design Report will include detailed drawings,
preliminary Special Provisions and Notice Inviting Bidders (including allowed
working days and recommendations for liquidate damages), identification of
materials, access requirements, and initial estimate including 20% contingency.
The 60% Design Report shall be provided in electronic and hardcopy format.
C. 90% Design Report. 90% Design Report will include nearly final detailed
drawings that incorporate all previous comments, preliminary bid package, and
engineer's estimate including 10% contingency. The 90% Design Report shall be
provided in electronic and hardcopy format. The City will provide any comments
and return to Consultant for preparation of final documents within 1 0 working
days.
D. 1 00% Construction Plans! 100% stamped and signed original reproducible
construction plans and specifications for bidding. Consultant will prepare a
similar set for construction if these are amended during the bidding or
construction phases of the project.
E. Addenda. Addenda, consisting of changes to plans or specifications, as needed
during the bidding process.
F. Calculations. Calculations justifying design decisions shall be submitted for
hydrology, hydraulics, sedimentation production, foundations, and structural
elements of the design. Calculations for hydrology and hydraulics shall be
performed according to the Los Angeles County (LACO) Hydrology Manual
(2006 or later edition) and LACO Hydraulic Manual (2002), respectively.
Sediment production calculations shall conform to procedures contained in the
LACO Sedimentation Manual, Second Edition. Foundation and structural
calculations shall demonstrate that construction designs and materials can resist
all anticipated forces including, but not limited to hydraulic (hydrodynamic), flood
(hydrostatic), scour and undermining, dead loads (trench bury), traffic and
surcharge loads. Calculations shall be submitted for review no later than the 90%
design submittal. Final calculations shall be sealed by a civil engineer holding a
current license to practice Civil Engineering in the State of California.
G. "As-Built" Plans. At the end of the construction phase, prepare "As-Built" record
drawings and submit electronically on CD in . pdf and .dwg formats. Record
drawings shall be appropriately stamped by the engineer of record.
Ol203.ooo6t614898.I A-9
H. Project const11~ction schedule.
I. Project cotl§truction cost estimate.
K. Site Condition. Consultant will ensure that all sites where field work is conducted
are left in the same or better condition as before the work, and that any dangerous
condition created by any field work is mitigated at the conclusion of the work.
Consultant shall promptly remove all equipment, trash, and other indications of
any field work.
III. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2, during performance of the Services,
Consultant will keep the City appraised of the status of performance by delivering
the following status reports:
A. Consultant will work with City staff throughout the project to prepare and submit
documents, images, maps, meeting notes, progress reporting, communications,
event timelines, etc., suitable for upload to the City website for public review.
Consultant will prepare the website updates on at least a monthly basis for the
duration of the project including submittals after public meetings and outreach
events.
B. Project status summary reports (weekly).
C. Updated design project schedule, as needed.
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 supervise the design team:
A. Steve Cummins, Principal-in-Charge
B. Chris Herrera, Project Manager
01203.0006/614898.1 A-10
() 1203.0006/614898. 1
EXHIBIT "B"
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
B-1
EXHIBIT ''C"
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Consultant shall perform the following tasks at the following rates:
,_,_,,..,,_,~-·-"""' ·-TASK DESCRIPTION COST
.. ----......... ..-.
Task 1 Survey and Document R e v1ew $11,170.00
""""""'"--·-·-·-----· -,_, '"'"'
Task 2 Schematic Design and Hydrau ic Analysis $33,239.00
·-~--"~-·"" "'-·-· -...... _,_ "-··-Task 3 Preliminary Desig n $13.955.00
....... "' ""'"""'"--.. ...... _ ....... _."'"~"'" .,. .. ..-
Task4 Detailed Design and Engineer 's Estimate $44,180.00
--· .. ---· ''"
__ ....
·-·-""-'"'"""'"'
Task 5 Bid and ConstructionS u pport $14,880.50
-"" .. -.... -.. _ .............................. """''-
Task 6 Meetings $22,452.050
"" ....... ,__,,_ .. ,, .. '"""""'
Total $139,877.00
.. --··"" ........ ~ '"'"""' "''"' ""''"
II. A retention of ten percent (10%) shall be held from each payment as a contract
retention to be paid as part of the final payment upon satisfactory completion of
services.
NOT APPLICABLE
III. Within the budgeted amounts for each Task, and with the approval of the Contract
Officer, funds may be shifted from one Task subbudget to another so long as the
Contract Sum is not exceeded per Section 2.1, unless Additional Services are
approved per Section 1.9.
IV. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of
a valid invoice. Each invoice is to include:
A. Line items for all personnel describing the work performed, the number of hours
worked, and the hourly rate.
B. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the Services.
C. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting
documentation.
D. Line items for all approved subcontractor labor, supplies, equipment, materials,
and travel properly charged to the Services.
oi203.ooo61614&9s.I C-1
V. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed the Contract Sum as
provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement.
VI. The Consultant's billing rates for all personnel are attached as Exhibit C-1.
01203 .. 0006/614898 I C-2
EXHIBIT "C-1"
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION BY TASK
01203.0006/614898.1 C-3
DCA Civil Engln«ring Group, Inc. {DCA} • Fee Breakdown for SODJP • FV 19-20 Client Name! Rancho Palos Verdes
!!i !Z "' ~ 0: ... ~ z :l( Q. f ~ .; "' s 0: ... z z ~ ::: ~ ::E 0 ... r! ~ z ... :ll :r Q.
" " z N u ~ 1:1 13 "' u < " Q. 0 > 3: ~ 15 z z "' ~ 0: !!j "' 0 1ii B Staff Title I ~ < ... !Z iil ... i:; t:; .. "' :X: :;; t ~ " 5 > z ~ z iQ t; ..
0: 0 o= t ... z Q i:'i "' ~ u ~ u a ~ ii :::> "' "' u z 5 ... z > "' 0 "' a ;;; a: 0: ... ::1 "' < A. 0: .. ~ ;; "' ~ ~ A. "' ... " "' 15
21s.ooT $ 140.00 $ 12S.OO $ 130.00 $ 78.00 $ 155.00 $231.1.00
&1:¥::
41 4
s
$ 18 40
zn
l l SS.SOO! . I$ s.aco.oo
2! 6i ur T 1$ j 38$ 4,174.00
!!1 14! Z7! ! I 121 ! I 61! $ 7;9SS.OO
~ ~
4!l 1\ 281 $ ~
30$ 3A1S.OO
2 41 18 10 34$ 3,99
0.5 2! 10 ,; 3 21.5 $ 2_331.l.Sil
2!} 20! !() 10!$ ~
0.51 1! 8 6 l 2 17.5 $ 1,s6s.sa
ll 5! 50 4!) 15 123$ 13,015.00
21 6 24 30 62 $ 5,152.00
J .! .... · ..
Totalli<>llt'; l 58 146 ! .284 .. 42 254 :u 18 1.'0 '40 1~;··· / ,;. .,,. ·:·
l
Not-to-Exceed Amount
20
EXHIBIT "D"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Consultant shall perform all Services timely in accordance with the following
schedule:
~---~..........,,,,
,, __ ,,
Task I>csct•iption _ D~ws to Perform 1--· .Deadline Date _,_
Task 1 Survey and Document 10 Days 12/13/19
Review
""'"''""'""-'" "'"-
Task2 Schematic Design and 20 Days 1/27/20
~"' ·~
Hxdraulic~ AnalY-sis
"''----~~·-'"'"
Task3 Preliminary Design 10 Days 2/11/20
........
Task4 Detailed Design, 60 Days 5/5/20
Environmental Clearance
, ___ ~nd Engineer's Estimate ....................... _ .... ~-
TaskS Bid and Construction 45 Days 7/10/20
SuEE_ort
'""'-~
Task6 ~eetings As needed 7110/20 ...........
II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the
following dates.
A. Deliverables that, per State DCA requirements, will be stamped/ sealed by
Certified PE, GE, CEO, and or PG:
1. Survey/Environmental/Geotechnical Report-Draft 12/13/19
2. Survey/Environmental/Geotechnical Report-Final 1/27/20
3. Design Package 5/5/20
4. Technical Specifications -90% 4/21/20
5. Technical Specifications -100% 5/5/20
6. Design Drawings -3 0% 2111/20
7. Design Drawings -60% 3/10/20
01203.0006/614898.1 D-1
8. Design Drawings -90% 4/21/20
9. Design Drawings - 1 00% 5/5/20
10. Special Provisions -90% 4/21/20
11. Special Provisions -1 00% 5/5/20
12. Engineer's Estimate -90% 4/21/20
13. Engineer's Estimate - 1 00% 5/5/20
14. Bid Package -Draft 5/5/20
15. Bid Package -Final 5/12/20
16. All final ( 1 00%) work products, signed/sealed. 7/10/20
B. Project construction schedule 5/12/20
C. Project cost estimate 5/12/20
D. Responses to RFis 2 business days following delivery to Consultant
III. The City Council may approve extensions for performance of the services in
accordance with Section 3.2.
01203.0006/614898.1 D-2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sunday, November 17, 2019 12:50 PM
CC; CityCierk; PC; imac; MrsRPV@aol.com; Dave Emenhiser <emenhiser@aol.com>; Ara
Mihranian
info@pvpwatch.com
November 19, 2019 Council Consent Calendar Item D. Interim City Manager. This is a really
big decision.
Follow up
Completed
Dear Mr. Mayor, Council Members and interested parties,
I would be delighted to have Ara Mihranian as our Interim City Manager, even our permanent City
Manager, but, only if you can find some way to make it clear to all that he will stop the lies,
obfuscation and subtly counter-productive Recommendations which he has been producing since
2004.
Check out the following email. I'm sure Leza was seriously reprimanded for "spilling the beans". The City
Attorney is suspect, too.
Maybe it is in the referenced but not restated Willmore, City Manager Employment Agreement, and has
never been enforced. At what point do our City Employees commit to being proactive about implementing
the City Council approved goals, policies and objectives? Where is there an agreed upon penalty should
one be caught promulgating false information? Most importantly, how can individual Council Members
respond to non-action on the part of the City Manager? The least of which is getting topics of concern onto
their Agenda in a timely fashion?
It all comes down to this opportunity to get back the "local control" which our City Council forfeited in 2004.
Given Ara Mihranian's track record up until 2004, I like to think that he, personally, supports the vision
described in our original General Plan. What is missing from the recommended Interim City Manager
Employment Agreement is the opportunity to swear to such a commitment to RPV and a downside should
that commitment turn out to be false.
Councilmember Dyda has stated that a General Plan is "unenforceable". That may be true. Given that it is
a State of California mandated document, that is great. Local control means that our locally elected
Representatives have the opportunity to discuss proposed actions with their constituents based on
complete analysis as provided by Staff. That "complete analysis" should focus on whatever "vision" the
majority of our current Council Members campaigned in favor of.
1
The differences between our updated General Plan and our original General Plan are in the degree of
discretion granted to Staff. What should be enforceable is Council and the public's ability to review a nd
comment on Staff's progression of decisions before they go too far in one direction or another . Notice that
the Agenda Report for Item D does not touch on any of this. What does "transparency" really mean?
It all comes down to the personal integrity of our City Manager. Doug Willmore admitted that he has taken
the ICLEI Pledge on behalf of all of his Staff. His predecessors did, too . They just weren't asked as
specifically . That means he is making his discretionary decisions based on directions from the
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives instead of from our local City Council and
residents.
This is another "big deal" hidden on your Consent Calendar. People are calling for somebody to "do
something". The best something you need to do now is to kick ICLEI's influence out of RPV's City Hall.
Next Item ... The NCCP is an ICL E I initiative .... S
S ubje ct :
Da te:
F rom:
To:
CC :
Hello Sunshine ,
FW: F ollowin g the mone y
5/29/2 01 3 I 0 :29 :0 2 A.M . Pac ifi c Day li ght Tim e
LezaM @ rpv .com
SunshineRPV@ aol.com
JoeiR @ rpv .com
If you scroll down to your original message, you will see my response in red. Please let me know that you received
this email, and I apologize again for the seemingly long delay in a response.
Leza Mikhail
Associate Planner
S ubject :
Date:
F rom:
T o:
CC:
Following the money
3/6/2 01 3 10:02:15 A.M . Pac ifi c Standard Tim e
SunshineRPV@ aol .com
denn ism@RPV.com
cc@ rov.com , clehr@ ro v.com
March 6, 2013
MEMO from Sunshine
2
TO: Dennis Mclean, RPV Director of Finance
RE: International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and/or the ICLEI sub group, Local
Governments for Sustainability, USA
Will you simply answer these three questions in a timely fashion or do I need to submit a formal Public
Information Act request?
When did RPV join this or these entities?
In May of2007, the City Council adopted a resolution endorsing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement,
which urged the enactment of policies and programs to meet or exceed the target of reducing global warming
pollution levels to 7% below 1990 levels (Kyoto Protocol) by 201 2 . As part ofthe City 's effort to accomplish this
goal , the City joined the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). The City works closely
with the South Bay Environmental Services Center (SBESC) to accompli sh reductions in greenhouse gas emissions ,
promote sustainable development and create plans that embody the City 's efforts.
How much money has the City of RPV paid this or these entities for dues, boilerplate documents, services
etc?
There was no fiscal impact as a result ofpartnering/joining ICLEI and working in partnership with the SBESC. On
occasion, City Staff tim e is used to help gather information for the SBESC staff to prepare studies and /or conduct
research. City Staff work s closely with SBESC staffto help faci litate meetings surrounding ICLE I topics or projects.
How many times has the City of RPV availed itself of ICLEI sponsored grants to facilitate "workshops" and
other public meetings?
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes work s directly with the SBESC , who helps the City meet and implement the ICLEI
pledge. E ssentially , the SBESC is the "head hunter" for oppotiunities available to the City. When feasible , the City
participates in the grant opportunities presented by the SBESC. These opportunities come through ICLEI
memberships , SCE, Cal Water, AQMD , etc. City staff is often attending "workshops ," training symposiums , round
table discussions to implement the three main goals ofiCLEI: 1) cleaner vehicles , 2) Energy Efficiency , and 3)
Renewable Energy. Unfortunately , I do not know an exact number, but the most recent grant funding that I can think
of came from AQMD (I believe) for two (2) new City fleet vehicles on the AQMD list. I believe the two new city
vehicles will be paid in full from AQMD money , with no money coming from the City 's General Fund .
3
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, November 18, 2019 12:55 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting NOV. 19, 2019 /. Consent Calendar Item G
Late carr
From: Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 11:35 AM
To: 'April Sandell' <hvybags@cox.net>; Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Emily Colborn <ecolborn@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: City Council Meeting NOV. 19, 2019 /.Consent Calendar Item G
Hello April,
Thank you for your interest in this item. I was hoping to have contract language settled in time, but it appears that this item
will pushed to the first meeting in December. This item does not require a public hearing.
Gabi
Gabriella Yap
Deputy City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5203 (office)
(310) 544-5291 (fax)
From: April Sandell [mailto:hvvbags@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 7:45 PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Emily Colborn <ecolborn@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: City Council Meeting NOV. 19, 2019 /.Consent Calendar Item G
Hi Teri,
Well, if you do have the "documents" at the end of business on Monday, that certainly doesn't allow much time for
those interested to prepare a response. May I respectfully ask again about the question of required public hearing or
not?
Thank you. April
On Nov 15, 2019, at 2:08PM, Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello Ms. Sandell-
lt is my understanding that this item will be pulled from the agenda, for future consideration, if we do not have
the documents by close of business, Monday November 18, 2019 at 5:30PM.
Thank you.
1
Teri Takaoka
Deputy City Clerk
From: April Sandell <hvybags(rocox.net>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 1:22 PM
To: Emily Colborn <ecolborn@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: City Council Meeting NOV. 19, 2019 /.Consent Calendar Item G
Hi Emily.
Will you please tell me when the related STAFF REPORT will be made public?. (I just
now checked the status and it still appears as "FORTHCOMING".) Apparently, at this
point, with or without the related report all comments would be considered as late
correspondence. More importantly, are you certain this the subject matter is appropriate for
the consent calendar? It is my otherwise understanding a public hearing is required in CA
and some other states. If I missed an earlier PUBLIC hearing on the subject please provide
me the date so I can catch up via the meeting video ..... sometime today.
Please include this email in late correspondence.
Thanks you in advance for your response.
Regards,
April L. Sandell
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, November 18, 2019 8:03 AM
CityCierk
FW: NCCP/HCP Revision Lower Filiorum Property
York LR.20.pdf; A TT00001.txt
From: Jim York <theyorkproperties@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2019 1:27 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; marybeth_woulfe@fws.gov; David Mayer <David.Mayer@wildlife.ca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Adrienne Mohan
<amohan@pvplc.org>; Sunshine <sunshinerpv@aol.com>; mrsrpv@aol.com; Bradley_ 4_rpv_cc@earthlink.net
Subject: NCCP/HCP Revision Lower Filiorum Property
>
>
>
>
>>
1 I.
\
/
'~
., '._' '
' ' ~.~':·
"<""'""'.'' --·~.-
/
PAReEt 0' A" ·"""f,q!/
\t ' '
~' i L'8
j
1 !X).~43$q II
·~~
'\ ZONE 12
8.1.:i.480S.F
Hl15 ACRCS
:99,7:;;>So It
;/
x:,
~~ ?
(
-<
I
• 1.....
................ .....__~
~ ' ~ ... ,
~/ \
)
" ,. "".. ' ~ '~~t,· -...
~
..... ,.,
10 276&1 11\ ~ ''·\ ' s 11. -. ' 13.<;8q \
ZONE J4
[I'AHCEL 'C')
173,164SF
3.(.liACAES
114.€015(]11
~~~·, \ ·, "\ ~~
I. :1 /'" r . . "\ .'-!
"'
H.>.S ~3 So II
,,
I
"-
PARCEL 'A'
NI:WCOMM UNI1Y
1 .t;~A84 Sr
Jl!'lACHI:.S
"..q·O~·v,c: 8?D:>:l Sqll
;q"~sD;q~·-....
sov,ft I
I
.SITS /V\A.ST5R'PLAN
)
,·/
PAfiCfl P b-r
~.:y
/ -,
f '
~~
·:~--NORT H
CATALINAV16W
Covvu,,'\,u~A-~tkj ~~A-ot N~tuy-e R..esevve
b001. Pet los VeYctes l:>Y~Ve SoutV\,
R..CIV\,cltto Petlos ve .... ctes, c.etl~foYV\,~CI.J02:rs
R.5F5R.5NG5 'PLAN
Mln<;AnON I N'FOR.MAnON .SI-t66T INDEiX
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
~A'<:.CEL 'A'· ~l>OS£>1:> D6Ve:l-OJ>M6NT A~6A
INeL"'"ES >tot"SII>ENT!.Ot\.. ;>'RQP15~T1~ Sr.;:.EIIiTS
.SII>tWALIC..S AN:> :1:0" \N', 0'1~6-CLEARANCE· :<:.ONE>
bOJ-;t53S.F
'3JI~"-C1UiS
REGlJA.IRel:> M1Tic,.AT10N AReA"' b()'J',153 S.F. X 1.." "' ~;?S0,01'f S .F.
!. ... Mrc;n·An;<> LAND n::> t (t>6Vt't..OP61>) IU".TIO 1'.51 ACiiit!OS
F'iA,lSL MOl:>IFICA.nON Z.ONES
"'0-r !!!t..t<:;~t.-6 1'011:. Mrn4"'onC>N A><:.EA
PA~6L 'A' 6t..I<!:;I'&L€ Mln.::jATtON At:;:.6A
PA~€L 'C' €t..l<!:;rti.LE M IT"IC,ATtON At:;:.E'A
PA~€L 't>' €t..l.::ji'&L6 MITic::;ATtON At:;:.6A
Z.ONE lf:l ELtc:;rti.LE Mlrlc,AnON A "R-EA
Z.ON6 #3 6LI<!:;I'&LE MITtc::;ATtON At:;:.€A
TOTAL €LIC,I'&L€ HA'S.ITAT At:;:.€A
1:1-!-,t;>O:lS.F.
_,~."}'~3.S.I' .
S.J.J,)'-52S.F.
:1,06-5,:1S3S.F.
HA'E-ITATl>L.AN
SOIA,TH Sin:> J>t...AN
NOR.TH Slr6 l>LAN
l>AR:.C.Et... 'N S6CT10NS
l>ARCE"L 'A' ELEVATIONS
J>LANTlNC, LE'C,Si'Jt>S
COMMI..(NITY J>LA.NT" IMAC,t=S
R.e:Stt:>6NT1AL l>LANT" IMAC,e'S
""-"MR<DY.ysoeeERSTUt>OO, M rn c;A n 0 N sTUDy
LAN"b.SCA"PC AR.CH-rrCCT!A..R.C § "PLANNIN<:; RD.20
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
City Council.
Kathy < ksnell0001 @aol.com >
Monday, November 18, 2019 4:27 PM
CC; CityCierk; CityManager
Katie Lozano; Octavia Silva; ksnell0001 @aol.com
Agenda NCCP/HCP
The new fuel brush management Map for Fire Prevention Purposes is inadequate for those escaping from a potential
fire driven by Santa Ana winds during low humidity for those trying to escape on Vanderlip Driveway. Vanderlip is
the only vehicle escape route for over 20 residences and horse stable facilities. Fire rescue vehicles will not be able to
enter if the brush catches on fire.
There is no red fuel modification designation on the map for the east side of lower Vanderlip. The weed abatement
distance from the driveway is not adequate. Weed abatement must include the dry 8' high mustard weeds within 200'
of the driveway as previous owners have done since the 1973 Peninsula fire. If these weeds are not mowed every
year and catch on fire, Vanderlip Driveway will become impassable due to smoke and fire. There are no other vehicle
escape routes.
The previous owners of the properties, Filiorum and Hon, paid LA County to disc about 200' from the North and East
sides of Vanderlip Driveway on their properties to maintain a smoke and fire free exit. Mrs. Vanderlip also provided
much weed abatement on the North side of the driveway for her dirt road which is now overgrown by weeds. The
City of RPV stopped the County from doing this very specific weed abatement many years ago due to wanting to
place the area in the NCCP.
/.
Lit nd
Flll!l Mod Arl!l
NCCP PrnSI!I'W!
0 Subarna Plen 8o.nWy
C'J ..tu ri5di on~ Bcun 0 10.
Foel -------
Brush Management in
Preserve for Fire Prevention Purposes
F I GUR E
[H]
If the Preserve does not provide needed weed abatement for the new norm of fire prevention , the entire Peninsula
could erupt in gale force fire winds worse than the 1973 fire which burned my property and many others.
RPV is the owner of the properties in question and can be held liable for fires that move from their mustard weed
ridden properties into residential areas.
Please keep the Peninsula safe and have the NCCP/HCP better address the newly observed fire issues after the
Paradise and Valley fires. The NCCP/HCP is not adequate and can place the entire Peninsula in danger.
Respectfully ,
Kathy Snell
310-707 -8876
2
ACCOUNT END BALANCE ACCOUNT END BALANCE DEBIT CREDIT END BALANCE
101-100-0000-0101 19,456,590.83
202-100-0000-0101 1,099,778.51
203-100-0000-0101 28,532.18
209 -100-0000-0101 33,023.12
211-100-0000-0101 1,401,057 .73
213-100-0000-0101 437,744 .86
214-100-0000-0101 97,495.36
215-100-0000-0101 812,136.73
216-100-0000-0101 2,679,522.95
217-100-0000-0101 126,093.32
220-100-0000-0101 979,878.51
221-100-0000-0101 80,072.44
222-100-0000-0101 915,971.38
223-100-0000-0101 765,752.66
224-100-0000-0101 42,123 .27
225-100-0000-0101 441,793.80
227-100-0000-0101 1,052.79
228-100-0000-0101 783,596.43
285-100-0000-0101 94,609.39 -310-100-0000-0101 (14,140.50) 310-208-0000-0208 11,475.57 101-190-0000-0130 310-208-0000-0208 14,140.50
330-100-0000-0101 27,375,277.11
331-100-0000-0101 98,821.23
332-100-0000-0101 (31,137.92) 332-208-0000-0208 (260 ,352.26) 101-190-0000-0130 332-208-0000-0208 3 1,137 .92
334-100-0000-0101 1,373,950.69
336-100-0000-0101 191,234.21
337-100-0000-0101 845,676.79
338-100-0000-0101 489,626.56
501-100-0000-0101 74,266 .88
681-100-0000-0101 2,694,375.63
701-100-0000-0101 195,634.33
780-100-0000-0101 711,423 .51
795-100-0000-0101 1,089,961.14
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Friday, November 15, 2019 12:35 PM
Jerry Duhovic; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Ken Dyda; Susan Brooks; CityCierk
PC; imac; FAC; CCAC; EPC; MrsRPV@aol.com; Dave Emenhiser <emenhiser@aol.com>;
info@pvpwatch.com
The process of fixing RPV's City Hall and I don't mean the Civic Center infrastructure.
Late correspondence for November 19, 2019 Council Agenda Item 1 (Public Hearing.)
Dear Mr. Mayor, Council and interested parties,
I do believe this is what is called an Op-Ed piece. I just haven't found a Publisher.
Did you have a difficult time figuring out who to vote for in the last RPV City Council elections? Boy do I
miss Lois Knight LaRue. She used to read the Agenda Report for every Item on our Council's Agenda and
then hand deliver a hard copy (they used to be less than 100 pages) to each person she knew who might
not otherwise know they were about to be personally impacted. She showed up and spoke to each Item,
too, even if there was just a typo in the Agenda Report. She sure caught a lot of errors and omissions.
And, a lot of people showed up to inspire some very healthy discussions about the unforeseen
consequences in Staff's Recommendations.
The time has come for us all to recognize that our lives are being run by a "Deep State". This can no
longer to be brushed off as a "conspiracy theory". As we move into the second decade of the 21st
Century, it falls onto each individual person to take action to preserve/restore what once made the United
States of America a very free Republic.
"Deep State" is another buzz word which is to be scoffed at as though it can't happen here. Evidence that
it is functioning very effectively right here in California and in Rancho Palos Verdes has made it onto the
front page of the PV News for the last several issues. David Rosenfeld appears to have presented both
sides of each different controversy until you ask... Who is really initiating these upsetting intrusions
on our local affairs, laws and finances?
Some agency's Staff and some special interest group's Staff, that is who. That is the "Deep State".
Environmentalists are not the most powerful special interest group. They are simply the most recent, best
marketing tool for those behind the original conspiracy theory. "One World Order" is very close to being a
normal way of life. Who holds the markers for all this
1
debt? If RPV is so fiscally sound, why do we hav7
keep worrying about our Pension Fund commitments? Staff turnover is not a good solution for those of us
who want Staffers who have actually read our General Plan.
More importantly, notice that no matter what action we voters and/or our Elected Representatives decide to
take, the process leading up to that action will have cost we Tax Payers and our local businesses a whole
lot of money. That is what each of us needs to help find a way to stop.
Our personal freedoms are being sucked away via our pocketbooks.
Do you really know who initiated "Complete Streets", "Common Core Curriculum", "the Great Recession",
"NCCP/HCP's", "Measure B", "the Homeless Crisis", "High Fire Risk", "Personal Safety", "Vanishing
Species", "the Healthcare Crisis", "Climate Change" and "the Failing Infrastructure Crisis"? These are just
a few of the "problems" that we are being told can only be resolved by giving governments more of our
personally earned dollars. That is a lie just like our City Manager's claim that implementing the draft RPV
NCCP does not "eliminate trails".
Following is a list of "boxes" which we used to have in order to defend our freedoms. Their effectiveness is
being eroded one Staff initiated project at a time. Do know that grants are made available by special
interest groups and that we Tax Payers end up spending money on projects we would not ordinarily want
to pay for. All this chatter among the public, Staff and the Council falls under the "Soap Box". Have you
noticed that everyone has stopped participating? How long has it been since you initiated an email chain
which actually went somewhere? The PV News is no longer full of letters TO THE EDITOR.
Last question. Since we who live here (and the original RPV General Plan) do not "want" or "need" more
housing ... Who is demanding that we provide it? The Deep State, that's who. Don't wait to make a New
Year's resolution. Start by subscribing to a bunch of categories in RPV's "Notify Me" page on their web-
site, rpvca.gov. Step onto your own "soap box".
I look forward to hearing from you at City Council Meetings. We need more characters to make it a "soap
opera" worth watching .... SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
REMEMBER:
There are four boxes that
2
protect American Freedom:
1 . The Soap Box
2. The Ballot Box
3. The Jury Box
4. The Ammo Box. (Defend the Second Amendment.)
Use them or lose them
If you are sending information, questions and suggestions to RPV's upper management Staff anything like
the following and are not receiving at least an acknowledgement, that is a violation of one of Council's
customer service policies. It has been recommended that you forward a copy to the City Clerk at
cityclerk@rpvca.gov with a question like... Wil a formal Public Records Request produce some sort of
reply?
Subject: With Attachments. Re: The Bronco Connection is not just an example
Date: 9/2/2019 4:14:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: esassoon@rpvca.gov, aram@rpvca.gov
Cc: mbarnes@rpvca.gov, joneill@rpvca.gov, gyap@rpvca.gov, imac@rpvca.gov, pc@rpv.com, epc@rpvca.gov, MrsRPV@aol.com,
emenhiser@aol.com, cprotem73@cox.net
Bee: ken.delong@verizon.net, mickeyrodich@gmail.com, hvybags@cox.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello Elias and Ara,
This design work needs to be done before Megan Barnes writes another Recommendation like the one for
the Crownview Lot. (September 3, 2019 Council Agenda Item 6.) Does James o'Neill know nothing about
human circulation? It should be done for Martingale Park and vicinity, too. 35 years later and the top two
priority trail connections have not been designed and therefore are not being maintained, nor are steps
3
being taken to enhance them. The efforts to make them "safe" and available to the public on a regional
basis have been poorly managed.
If Staff disagrees with the City's on-going Goal of providing a safe and efficient network of roadways, trails
and pathways ... , all you have to do is register a General Plan Amendment proposal and follow the steps to
a Public Hearing before the City Council. Not really answering questions is just plain unprofessional. I
consider Staff's methodology of non-action, attrition and counter sub-plans to be fraud, waste and abuse.
Tuesday evening's Agenda Item 2 reflects the same problem. Come Staff Presentation time, if you two
have not shared some old facts and wisdom with the young presenters so that they can share it with the
City Council and the public, I'll start seriously looking into how to get the RPV General Plan implemented
without suing myself, i.e. the City. I will be watching the meeting.
Send me your collective, RPV produced RFP even if you intend to have an in-house or on-call Engineer
draw up the Design. Tick tock. . .. S
September 1, 2019
Draft Request for Proposal-RPV Conceptual Trails Plan, Section 5 (Area 8), trail F2
To whom it may concern,
For a variety of purposes, the residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes need an engineered design
(Grading Contractor level) of an ideal trail connection route across several privately-owned parcels. Call it
The Bronco Connection in Spoke #2.
The objective is a TYPE 4 trail per the TRAIL DEVELOPMENT I MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July 4,
2012 (attached) from Point A (Bronco Dr.) to Point B (the existing trail in Rolling Hills Estates). See
attached "Concept v reality map" dated March 6, 2012. Storm water run-off I erosion control needs to be
accommodated.
This is urgent because #8 Chaparral is, once again, on LA County's list of tax-defaulted properties and the
City needs to know if purchasing it will contribute toward preserving and enhancing this critical link in the
Peninsula Wheel Trails Network. See the attached (undated from 2018) RPV Staff analysis of 8 Chaparral
Lane and vicinity.
4
Do note that the City holds a trail use easement across the west side of #7 Chaparral, an Irrevocable Offer
of Trail Easement across the north side of #12 Bronco and that there are several sewer easements in
place. It will ease the process of making this trail connection available for public use if these easements
are utilized, however, they should not dramatically impact the idealness of this conceptual route.
Also note that this area is on the State of California's "active landslide list".
Comments and questions should be directed to SUNSHINE at sunshinerpv@aol.com.
Subject: Area 8 and CaiWater and the TNP
Date: 8/23/2019 5:19:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: esassoon@rpvca.gov, aram@rpvca.gov, gyap@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello Elias and Ara,
Have you guys coordinated an effort to take advantage of this opportunity?
... As part of a separate infrastructure improvement project, Cal Water is installing pipeline in the City starting this
month on Mustang Road from Surrey Lane to Bronco Drive; on Bronco Drive from Palos Verdes Drive East to
Martingale Drive; and along a portion of Stallion Road. Work is expected to take 10 weeks to complete and includes
the installation of 3,200 feet of new 6-inch ductile iron water main, as well as the replacement of about 40 individual
water services. Crews will also replace four fire hydrants ...
These roadways and roadsides are in a Q Zone. Bronco Drive is an "arterial" in the Conceptual Trails
Plan. A portion is on Spoke #2 of the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network.
Obviously, this CaiWater Project did not get coordinated with the recently completed Area 8 Residential
Roadway Rehabilitation Project. This is an opportunity to start the process of putting roadside trail
5
maintenance and enhancement into the Public Works program. There is nothing in the trails "narratives"
which are "obsolete" other than specifying the Criteria TYPEs.
I am still waiting for a response about converting the CTP Sections to Public Works' City sub-areas and
getting a pre-design for the Bronco Connection. Are you two on the same page, yet? ... S 310-377-8761
Subject: General Plan v. NCCP. This is not just a trails issue. Action required.
Date: 12/5/2018 11:30:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: cc@rpvca.gov
Cc: kitf@rpvca.gov
Bee: theyorkproperties@gmail.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
MEMO
DATE: December 5, 2018
FROM: SUNSHINE
TO: RPV City Council and interested parties
RE: One example of what is wrong with RPV's management style. NCCP v. General Plan
Attached is an illustration which was created by Kit Fox (City Manager's Dept.) in relation to the
taxdefaulted property at 8 Chaparral Lane. I have added the route of the existing trail connection which is
shown as "conceptual" in the original RPV General Plan, described as a point-to-point trail in the RPV
Conceptual Trails section of the RPV Trails Network Plan and is the RPV portion of Spoke #2 of the
Peninsula Wheel Trails Network.
The sad thing is that Kit put this together for my information. I know all of what he has pointed out, and
more. It is the Public Works Dept, the Community Development Dept, the Rec.& Parks Dept. and the
Finance Dept. Staff who need,to be aware of the changing circumstances in the area and should become
proactive in pursuit of the opportunities to preserve and enhance this historic and desirable trail connection.
6
The primary thing that should have been done long ago and now be done ASAP is the budgeting for and
the design of the ideal route of the Bronco Trail. Because so many undeveloped lots are involved,
Conceptual Trails Plan Section Five, trail F2 should be pre-engineered as a minimum TYPE 5 trail prism.
Public Works needs to initiate that via the Finance Dept. and our on-call Engineers.
The Planning Division needs access to this design for when any of these lots are presented with
Applications for development. We do not need a repeat of the 1 0 Chaparral Application which included
easement requests by Staff where there was no potential for a viable trail of any TYPE.
The Rec.& Parks Dept. needs to look into why this area is not mentioned in the draft NCCP. Partially
because of the active landslide on the site, LA County had designated this area as a potential park site.
The original General Plan identified it as a potential "municipal stable". The PVPLC now owns the large
parcel which contains a very mature riparian habitat. The trail to where Geology students can view the
outcropping of Catalina Schist should be designated as a TYPE 7 trail so that it can be maintained without
any threat of anyone claiming this public access to be a "taking" of Habitat. If R&P can't pull together a
comprehensive Agenda Report with a recommendation for the future of this area, who should?
The Community Development Dept. has received a request for assistance with getting a voluntary, no cost,
Irrevocable Offer of Trail Easement across the northwestern side of 14 Bronco Drive. It would be an
overlay of an existing sewer easement. Staff has received previous requests to have the new City Attorney
review and bless/modify Carol Lynch's boilerplate form. Members of the public cannot nurture volunteer
offers without Staff assistance and we are not getting any. 14 Bronco has sold so, that opportunity has
been lost. The public needs the form in order to pursue future offers.
The September 18, 2018 Land Use Map shows a preponderance of this area as OPEN SPACE HILLSIDE.
My request that the General Plan Update include some specific language to permit trail construction on
"Hillsides" was not accommodated.
This is as close to bullet items as I can make it without assuming that anyone at City Hall has a grasp on
the whole picture. The City Manager's Staff is recommending that the purchase of 8 Chaparral be pursued
without any clear indication of how the City's ownership of this parcel will enhance the amenities which the
City provides to the public. The City's ownership/maintenance of the lot which is sometimes referred to as
the East Crest Trailhead Park is a waste of tax payer dollars.
I continue to urge the Council to create an Infrastructure and Activities Commission. This would force the
various departments to get their acts together before they present a recommendation of action to the City
Council. This is the epitome of "screening by the public". Maybe such a body will be able to sort out the
conflicts between the RPV General Plan and the NCCP. Please do not adopt the NCCP as drafted.
7
8
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late carr
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, November 18, 2019 2:01 PM
CityCierk
FW: Zone 2 FEIR
From: Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 2:00PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Jeremy Davies <jeremydavies2014@gmail.com>; Gordon Leon <gordon.leon@gmail.com>; Claudia Gutierrez
<clauderpv@hotmail.com>; Dennis Gardner <dennisggardner@me.com>
Subject: Zone 2 FEIR
Mayor and Council members,
I am recommending that you allow more time for the public to review the Zone 2 FEIR. I was told by a
community member that a staff member told her the Zone 2 FEIR item was to be delayed to the Dec.
17 meeting as it would make the Nov. 19 meeting too long. Due to a family emergency, I was relieved
that I had the time now to address several issues with the FEIR. Then on Nov. 15 received an email
from staff that the Zone 2 FEIR will be heard on Nov. 19. 4 days notice!
I don't have t:i1ne to review the hundreds of pages but did I noticed a troubling amendment to the FEIR
in Sec. 4.8.1
"The existing drainage system Portuguese Bend Development, including the 31 undeveloped lots, was
originally permitted by the County designed in 1940 for the entire Portuguese Bend Development,
including the 31 undeveloped lots."
The revised statement takes out the word "designed" and appears to be a run around of an issue raised
by the community on the previous EIR. We asked that the EIR consultant show us engineering plans of
our roads and drainage system. They could not produce them. Disclosure of this issue is now avoided
by this revised FEIR statement. Numerous geology reports since the County "permitted" our roads
have shown unique and significant impacts to geological stability by deficiencies in our drainage system.
A major landslide has occurred since the County "permitted" our drainage system.
Aside from drainage, with no engineering plans for our community roads, the EIR had nothing to show
that our roads can withstand modern concrete mixing truck with a capacity of 10 cubic yards weighing as
much as 26,000 pounds (13 tons) nor the numerous other heavy vehicles across our roads. This
environmental impact must be disclosed in the EIR.
In the limited time to review the document I have noticed other issues not being addressed in the FEIR
with the consultant's response to comments concluding it would be "infeasible" to address. The proper
process of any CEQA document is to disclose a potential impact and, if infeasible to mitigate, then allow
1 d.
the lead agency (Council) to make an overriding statement of consideration. The primary purpose of
CEQA is disclosure.
I recommend you choose Alternative 1 in the staff report "Continue the public hearing to a date certain
to allow additional time for the public to review the Final EIR and the responses to the comments
received on the Draft EIR"
'T'hank you for your consideration on this matter,
Jim Knight
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Octavia Silva
Sunday, November 17, 2019 8:07 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions Final Environmental Impact Report
Late Correspondence for CC Meeting
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 5:16 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: robert.cumby@cox.net; dennisggardner@me.com; ksnell0001@aol.com; Sherihastings@yahoo.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>;
CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; theyorkproperties@gmail.com; gardner4@earthlink.net; jdavies@kuboaa.com
Subject: Re: Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions Final Environmental Impact Report
Hi Octavia,
Thanks for the heads up. How's chances that somewhere in all this is Staff's explanation of why you are
not recommending that all the Landslide Moratorium Ordinances be rescinded due to the fact that the rest
of the City's Municipal Codes are perfectly effective based on what we now know about the landslide
complex? I'm just going to keep asking. . .. S
In a message dated 11115/2019 10:32:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, OctavioS@rpvca.gov writes:
Hello,
On November 19, 2019, the City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider the certification of an
updated Final Environmental Impact Report including the adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adoption of an ordinance amending
Section 15.20.040 (Exceptions) ofthe Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to amend Exception Category 'P'
to allow and to clarify the future submittal of Landslide Moratorium Exception applications for the residential
development of 31 undeveloped lots in Zone 2 of the City's Landslide Moratorium Area.
A copy ofthe staff report is available on the City's website at the following link:
https :/ /www.rpvca. gov I 1140/Zone-2-Non-Monks-Lots
Octavio Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov<http:/ /www.rpvca.gov>
octavios@rpvca.gov<mailto:octavios@rpvca.gov>
(31 0) 544-5234
1 J.
From: Octavia Silva
Sent:
To:
Sunday, November 17, 2019 8:06 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Portugese Bend DEIR Agenda Comment
Late Correspondence for CC meeting
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 8:18 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Portugese Bend DEIR Agenda Comment
From: gardner4@earthlink.net
To: kitf@rQvca.gov
Cc: cityclerk@rQvca.gov
Sent: 11/14/2019 10:11:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: Portugese Bend DEIR Agenda Comment
Please add this comment and question to the November 19, 2019 agenda item regarding Zone 2 building
permits potential entitlements.
With the building of Monk lot and proposed further building in the Community of Portugese Bend, the
overall infrastructure needs to be considered as though this is a whole new subdivision project.
Is our City willing to bear the burden of costs for road and sewer and storm drain improvements?
Asking our Community members to take on the sewer and other amenity upgrades is unreasonable and
unacceptable.
Sincerely,
Cathy Gardner
57 Narcissa Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
1
From: Octavia Silva
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, November 13,2019 7:51AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: additional point
Late correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2.
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
(31 0) 544-5234
From: Neil Siegel [mailto:siegel.neil@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 11:22 AM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Neil Siegel <siegel.neil@gmail.com>
Subject: additional point
Octavia --Here is a short additional comment on the FEIR:
I note that in mitigation measure HWQ-3(a), you decrease maximum lot coverage from 40% to 25%
for lots zoned RS-2. I believe that to be unnecessary. Since you will be requiring a hydrology
report, you can leave the statutory limit at 40%, and require that the hydrologist make a
recommendation between 25% and 40%, based on the specifics of that lot.
Yours,
Neil Siegel
Lot owner at 7 Thyme Place
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(please direct correspondence to siegel.neil@gmail.com)
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Octavia Silva
Wednesday, November 13, 2019 7:51 AM
CityCierk
FW: Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions Final Environmental Impact Report
Crockett letter on FEIR (1 ).pdf
Late correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2 with an attachment.
Thank you,
Octavia Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rgvca.gov
octavios@rgvca.gov
(31 0) 544-5234
From: Jen Mendonca [mailto:jpm41189@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 5:19 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions Final Environmental Impact Report
Dear City council members,
I agree with the staff report to certify the FEIR. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank Ara, Octavia, and Rincon
consultants for their hard work and dedication to get the FEIR back on the table.
Could you please add the following letter from our attorney Bob Crockett to the FEIR staff report that will go out on the
November 19 1h city council meeting. He represents us lot owners in Zone 2 and has addressed every concern brought up by
Jim Knight, Gordon Leon and Cassie Jones during the last public hearing on the DEIR.
I would also like to bring to your attention that Gordon Leon has approached some of us lot owners to buy our lots at a very
low price. I request the city council to bear this in mind, when you make your decision. We bought our non monk lot in 2013,
as I have mentioned in my earlier letters and have been trying to build a home on my lot since then. The decisions made by the
city council so far has contributed to a lot of stress for families like ours. We have been renting since 2013 with the hope that
we will be able to build our house on our lot some day. I urge the city council to make a fair and unbiased decision at the Nov
19th public hearing and give us our basic right to build and live in a home that we own.
Thank you,
Jennifer & Subhash Mendonca
On Thu, Oct 31,2019 at 3:41PM Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
1
Hello,
On October 31, 20 19, the Community Development Department issued a notice informing the public that the City
Council will conduct a public hearing at its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, November 19, 2019 to consider
the certification of an updated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Code Amendment related to
residential development in Zone 2 of the Landslide Moratorium Area. A copy of the notice has been attached for
your records.
Please note that the notice also informs the public that the FEIR will be available for review on Friday, November 1,
2019 on the City's website at:
http:/ /www.rpvca. gov I 1140/Zone-2-Non-Monks-Lots
If you have any questions, please contact me at the information listed below.
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
(31 0) 544-5234
2
Crc)ckett
s ciates
September 30, 2019
Octavio Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Departrnent
30940 llawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes. CA 90275
Rc: Rancho Palos Verdes, Zone 2 Owners;
DEIR Comments
Dear Mr. Silva:
Robert D. Crockett
23929 Valencia Blvd., Suite 303
Valencia, California 91355
323-487··no1 I 323-843-9711 fax
bob@ bo be roc kettlaw.com
www. bobcrockettlaw.com
On behalf of lot owners in Zone 2 whorn I represent, I offer the fbllowing DEll{
comments.
1. "Adoption of the prolwsed ordinance would allow for the construction
of up to 31 single-family homes in the 11roject area. Sevcr·al of the single-
family homes could be constructed in an area in which there is a potential
for flood hazards." HWQ-5
·rhe environment's impact upon the pr~ject is not a legilimate CFQA inquiry.
Such impacts are resolved by standard building and safety considerations, not CEQA.
(5'ee Cal. Bldg Indus. Ass'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369,
388 [J 96 Cal. H.ptr. 3d 94] (''[W]e must distinguish between requirements that consider
the environment's effects on a project and those that contemplate the prqject's impacts on
the existing environment. 'fhe former. in light of our analysis of section 21083 and other
relevant lan!!uage in CEQA. are invalid.").
{oy./ \;,.,..' . /
2. ''Alta mira Canyon is the main natural drainage course that drains the
project area and off-site tributary areas. Altamira Canyon has
experienced nnd continues to expe.riencc erosion that is partially due to
Page 2
September 30. 2019
runoff from the existing development in and outside of the project area."
DElR 4.8.1.
"The flood hazard zones are shown in Figure 4.8-I. As shown on Figure
4.8-1, nine of the 31 Jots that could he developed as a result of the project
are partially or completely located within the ZoneD designation." DEIR
4.8.l.
According to studies made over many years by Dr. Robert Douglas, a USC
geologist (and long~time Portuguese Bend resident), the water in Altamira Canyon is
collected tl·om a wide area, far larger than the residential area of Portuguese Bend, and
therefore the additional contribution to water volume in Altamira Canyon from the
development ofthc remaining 31 residential lots in Zone 2 vvould be de minimus,
especially in light of the requirements for collecting and retaining rain water on each new
building site. We believe that your experts will come to the same conclusion, especially
if they do something that Dr. Douglas did: plot on a map the entire area that feeds water
into Altamira Canyon, and then also plot on that same map the 31 undeveloped
lots. Such a map makes it easy to sec that the incremental contribution fi·om those 31 lots
is insigniflcant. We recommend that you have your experts prepare such a map, and
include it in the EfR.
We point out that the DEIR states on page 4.8-9: "The increase in peak runqff
rates as a result qj'buildout ofthe 31lotsfor the design storm events (10, 25, 50-year,
and Capital Storm) rangesji·om 0.5% to J%jbr the entire watershed." This shows that
your experts have arrived at the same conclusion that Dr. Douglas arrived at, e.g., the
additional contribution to water volume in Allam ira Canyon from the development of the
remaining 31 residential lots in Zone 2 would be de minirnus.
We also point out that the DEIR also states on page 4.8-14:
"Furthermore, City st(4fis ofthe opinion that, provided that best
engineering practices are employed and holding tanks are maintained
and operational during storm events, the incorporation qj'similar
min:gation measures would ensure that the.fiJJure development (~{3 I lots
would not cause any significant increase in runqflduring rain events in
the prqject area. "
3. hn p11ct T-1: The potential increase in vehicles traveling on the
surrounding roadway network from buildout under the proposed
ordinance revisions would result in significant impacts at four of the study
area intersections under existing plus project conditions. In addition, the
increase in vehicle tt·ips under cumulative conditions would result in
significant impacts at five of the study area intersections. Mitigation
P:1gc 3
September 30, 2019
Measur·es T-l(a) through T-J(d) would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level at four of the five intersections that would experience
significant impacts. However, because feasible mitigation is not available
at the Via Rivera/Hawthorne Boulevard intersection, the impact at that
location would be Class 1, :·i'ign{{icant ami umrvoidable.
4. Impact T -2: The proposed project would increase traffic l<.•vels along
roadways in the vicinity of the project area and result in n significant
impact at one of two study roadway segments under cumulative
conditions. Although Mitigation Measure T-2 would reduce impacts to a
Jess than significant level, this measure may be infeasible. Therefore, the
impact to this roadway segment would remain Class 1, significant and
unavoidable.
5. Impact T-4: Access to the project area during construction activity and
during the opcr}ttional phase of the project would be provided via Palos
Vet·des Drive South. Although construction traffic would be temporary, it
could potentially e.xceed City significunc.e thresholds during peak
construction periods. Mitigation would reduce, but not avoid this
potential. Thcn~fore, temporary construction impacts related to access
nnd circulation ·would be Class I, significant and unnvoidable.
As to T l, T2 and ·r4, the long-ago decision to zone these 31 lots for residential
development carried with it a determination that the roads for ingress and egress are
adequate for both routine and emergency use. 'I'here is no need to conduct a CEQA
evaluation f()r a project which has been previously approved by the City Council pursuant
to then-legal requirements.
We do support reasonable mitigation measures regarding trafllc. e.g., restrictions
on the number of simultaneous construction prqjects. limitations on hours of access for
large construction equipment, restrictions on on-street parking, and so Jhrth. If the City is
able to negotiate an agreement with Mr. York for an additional emergency access across
his property, that would be well~and-good, but ought not to be a condition fbr approval of
this EIR and the associated amendment to the L,ME; the prior zoning decision is a firm
statement that the two existing roads are suitable for routine and emergency access for the
full complement of lots within Zone 2. We recommend that you add a statement that
such additional access would be nice to have, but is not necessary, as your analysis has
found that the existing two roads are adequate f()r both routine and emergency usc.
It is our view that the mitigation measures proposed by the City staff in this regard
are both reasonable and sufGcient. We ask you to bear in mind that thousands of people
already live on the south side of Palos Verdes; we do not believe that the contribution of
31 additional homes will be material on the large scale (e.g., Hawthorne Boulevard and
Page 4
Scpternber30, 20 I 9
Palos Verdes Drive South). On the small scale (e.g .. within the Portuguese Bend gated
community}. we again point out that the long-ago decision to zone these 31 lots for
residential development carried with it a determination that the roads fbr ingress and
egress are adequate f()r both routine and emergency use. We ask that you clarify this
distinction between large-scale traffic concerns (e.g .• the entire south side of the
peninsula) and small-scale tranic concerns (e.g., within the gated Portuguese Bend
community itseH) in the EIR.
3. Appendix E (Flood and Hydrology), J>. J2. We note that the existing street
and drainage development are reported to be adequate for the development of the
undeveloped Zone 2 lots. We support \Vater run-off mitigation measures, especially on-
site holding tanks and catch basins, and support also enfiJrcement measures to ensure that
during and after construction those requirements for retaining water are properly
implemented. We believe these to be entirely cfl:cctivc mitigation measures. We do also
ask you to bear in mind that in this neighborhood, the streets f1)r most of the
neighborhood are the storrn drains. and the videos of water running down the streets
during a rainstonn simply show that the streets are serving this function as designed and
as intended. We recommend that you add a statement to the EIR noting that in this
neighborhood, the streets for most of the neighborhood are the storm drains.
4. A comment was raised during the public hearing regarding se.ismic-
induced landslide hazards. By the City·s own definition of Zone 2 that this zone
is not a landslide area (Zone~ 2 is described and titled as "Subdivided land unaffected by
large historic landslides"); Zone 2 was included in the original moratorium only because
it was near to actual landslide areas, rather than itself being a landslide area. In any case,
your geologists are capable of assessing this risk; we remind you that both Dr. Ehlig and
Dr. Douglas studied this matter, and both concluded that (quoting Dr. Ehlig) "The
undeveloped lots ... could be developed wit/tout adverse~v a.ffecting the stability of the
large ancient landslide''. We recommend that you add a statement that cites the very title
of Zone 2, and note that local seismic issues have never triggered a landslide in Zone 2.
6. We see no reason to limit lot coverage to less than is allowed for other lots
with the same zoning designation. If there are issues that arise from the specific
configuration of an individual lot regarding drainage or other matters. that is best
addressed during the permitting process.
7f/J;;; £.-.-----·-~··-·····~ .....
I (/{(/J( ,
Robert D. Crockett
Crockett & Associates
Page 5
September 30,2019
bee: Neil Siegel
4845·1409·0408, V, 1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Octavia Silva
Wednesday, November 13, 2019 7:50 AM
CityCierk
FW: EIR and Mitigation Measures
Late correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2.
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: Jeremy Davies [mailto:jeremydavies2014@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 3:56 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Dennis Gardner <dennisggardner@me.com>;
Claudia Gutierrez <clauderpv@hotmail.com>; j <joanmc8921@aol.com>; Monika Bauer <rmbstS@msn.com>; kim nelson
<kimnelson@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com> <knightjim33@gmail.com>; Gordon & Claire Leon
<gordon.leon@gmail.com>; IDSioan@aol.com
Subject: EIR and Mitigation Measures
Dear Octavia,
This is a bit late, but may I suggest the City reviews each mitigation measure and determines whom within the city
(or the department) is responsible for ensuring implementation happens. Also establish frequency of review. This will
help residents and lot owners go to the City efficiently in the event they have issues on implementation.
Have a great weekend.
Jeremy
1 :J.
From: Octavia Silva
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, November 13, 2019 7:50AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: FEIR
Late correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2.
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: Jesus Jesse Gutierrez [mailto:lamaria.jesus43@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 2:39 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FEIR
To board members
I support the certification of the FEIR, and the adoption of the proposed modification to the City Landslide Moratorium
ordinance.
Thank you for your consideration and I ask that you vote in favor of the FEIR that would lift the Zone 2 landslide moratorium
for the remaining 311ots.
Sincerely Yours Jesus Gutierrez
1
From: Octavia Silva
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, November 13, 2019 7:50AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: In Favor of the Zone 2 FEIR
Late correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2.
Thank you,
Octavio Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
yyww. rpvca.gov
gctavios@rpvca.gov
(31 0) 544-5234
From: Maria [mailto:rainier@q.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 2:26PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: In Favor of the Zone 2 FEIR
To the City Council:
As a lot owner and member in good standing of the Rancho PV Community Association I ask you to
vote in favor of the updated FEIR. Many of us lot owners have waited 20+ years for the opportunity to
develop our lots in the manner that was originally intended by the Community Planner.
In addition, I implore you to oppose the amendments "Alternative 1 & 2" and allow the remaining
Zone 2 lots to be held to the same permitting processes/ restrictions that the Monk lots were subjected
to.
Thank you for your consideration.
Maria Gutierrez, Trustee
55 Narcissa Drive and 44 Cinnamon Lane
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Octavia Silva
Wednesday, November 13, 2019 7:50AM
CityCierk
FW: In Favor of Certification of the FEIR-Zone 2 of Portuguese Bend
Late correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2.
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
From: Naylor, Robert [mailto:robertnaylor@dwt.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 2:00 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: In Favor of Certification of the FEIR-Zone 2 of Portuguese Bend
To the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council:
Each of the lots within the Portuguese Bend Zone 2 must be treated exactly the same with respect to the City Landslide
Moratorium ordinance. I can see no reasonable basis to do otherwise. Therefore, I support the certification of the FEIR (CASE
NO. PLCA2018-0004), and the adoption of the proposed modification to such ordinance. To be clear, I support FEIR's primary
recommendations (and oppose the "Alternative 1 & 2" listed on page ES-3), and urge the city to be sure that development
rules that apply to any Zone 2 lot are no less favorable than those that were applied to the Monks lots.
As is, certain Zone 2 lots adjacent to our own have been, or are currently being, developed, while our lots remain subject to the
moratorium. I believe that applying the moratorium in this manner serves no legitimate purpose, and any policy decisions
continuing this unfair arrangement (which significantly reduces the value of our property) could only be considered arbitrary
and capricious.
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. I am writing on behalf of my spouse and children who have a beneficial
ownership interest in lots located at 55 Narcissa Drive and 44 Cinnamon Lane.
Robert Naylor
11701 24th Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98125
1 a.
From: Octavio Silva
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, November 13, 2019 7:49 AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Updated final EIR and code amendment related to Zone 2 of the Landslide Moratorium
Area
Late correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2.
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
(31 0) 544-5234
From: Leanne Twidwell [mailto:leetwid@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 1:23 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Updated final EIR and code amendment related to Zone 2 of the Landslide Moratorium Area
To the members ofthe Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,
We are writing to say that we are looking forward to passage of the final Environmental Impact Report and code
amendment related to Zone 2 of the Landslide Moratorium Area that would allow the development of the remaining
31 undeveloped lots in Zone 2 of Portuguese Bend.
Sincerely,
George and Leanne Twidwell
32 Sweetbay Road
Rancho Palos Verdes
310 541-1003
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Octavia Silva
Wednesday, November 13,2019 7:48AM
CityCierk
FW: test again
Late correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2.
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. g ov
(310) 544-5234
From: Andrea Joannou [mailto:andrearpv@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 1:17 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: test again
Dear Octavious and Ara,
I am writing another email in reference to the FINAL CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPORT REPORT for the Zone 2 Landslide Mortatorium Ordinance.
Hopefully, the City Council will do the right thing and pass and certifiy the report next week. It's about time. I am
thrilled that the remaining zone 2 lot owners will be able to finally have their building entitlements whether they build
or not. They were supposed to have these rights years ago but, it's in my opinion that politics got in the way and
delayed them. (NOT FAIR).
Thank you again and let's get this done.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:56 PM Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Andrea,
The deadline was at noon today in order to get the comment into the staff report. If you send something over, I'd forward it
to the City Council as late correspondence.
1 ~. 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
(31 0) 544-5234
From: Andrea Joannou [mailto:andrearpv@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 12:51 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: test again
Hello Octavio,
Today is the dead line for supporting letters for zone 2. I already emailed one to you month's ago, would it make
difference ifi sent another in today for the end of today. As you know, I fully support it.
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 10:23 AM Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Andrea,
Yes, this is my email address.
l received your comments dated 8/24.
Thank you,
2
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. g ov
(310) 544-5234
From: Andrea Joannou [mailto:andrearpv@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 3:54PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: test again
Is this your email address?.
Andrea Joannou
Tel: (310) 941-0777 I andrearpv@gmail.com I
"People don't care what you know~ until they know that you care"
Andrea Joannou
Tel: (310) 941-0777 I andrearpv@gmail.com I
"People don't care what you know, until they know that you care"
3
Andrea Joannou
Tel: (310) 941~0777 I andrearpv@gmail.com I
"People don't care what you know~ until they know that you care"
4
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Octavia Silva
Wednesday, November 13, 2019 7:47AM
CityCierk
FW: Portuguese Bend FEIR
Late Correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2.
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: Melinda Politeo [mailto:m.politeo@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 12:21 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Portuguese Bend FEIR
Dear Mr. Silva,
I am a lot owner in zone 2 in Portuguese Bend. Please support and accept the FEIR as written.
Please apply the same restrictions for building size that were applied to previous building projects in Portuguese Bend.
I do not support that theses 311ots in zone 2 have different lot coverage than existing built lots.
Thank you,
Melinda Politeo
Sent from my iPad
1 J.
From: James O'Neill
Sent:
To:
Monday, November 18, 2019 8:17AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Brush clearance in the preserve areas and on the bluff at Ocean Front Estates
From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 7:02 PM
To: Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; Cris Land Conversancy Cris Sarabia <csabaria@pvplc.org>; City Clerk Shared
Calendar <City_Cierk_Shared_Calendar@rpvca.gov>; Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>; Emily Colville
<emily.colville@rpvca.gov>
Cc: James O'Neill <joneill@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Brush clearance in the preserve areas and on the bluff at Ocean Front Estates
Fyi
This is late correspondence for the PVPLC item which is on Nov 19, 2019 CC Agenda.
Have a great weekend
Elias
Sent from my Vcrizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphonc
--------Original message --------
From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Date: 11115/19 11:24 AM (GMT -08:00)
To: fbnming(ii)centercal. com ,. ____ ......... ""~.;;.J-· ...
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>, James O'Neill <joncillfi{)rpvca.gov>, Katie Lozano
<KatieL(ii).rpvca.gov>, Cory Linder <CorvUcy.rpvca.gov>, Teresa Takaoka <reri'f(i[irpvca.gov>
Subject: Brush clearance in the preserve areas and on the bluff at Ocean Front Estates
Mr. Bruning,
Thank you for your email expressing concerns with brush clearance.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC}, the habitat managers for the Preserve, is requesting grant
funding from the City Council to remove non-native acacia shrubs from certain areas of the Preserve. The City
Council will be considering the PVPLC's request at its upcoming Tuesday, November 19, 2019 meeting, and the areas
around Oceanfront Estates are discussed on pages 3 and 4. You can review the staff report on the City's website at
the following link:
https://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php ?view id=S&event id=1293&meta id=77009
1
If the City Council approves the PVPLC's request, the removal of acacia from the area will go a long way towards
addressing your concerns. According to PVPLC's proposal, work can be completed in 6-8 weeks, so we would
anticipate such work would be completed by mid-January, depending on when work is started. Additionally, Cris
Sarabia of PVPLC stated that they will also address areas of mustard that he discussed with Lisa Levine and another
board member when they met a few weeks ago, but that would be after the acacia removal project.
Additionally, the City is working with the County Department of Agriculture to identify appropriate methods for fuel
modification, including clearing and/or thinning of areas that are within 200 feet of structures.
As for visitors jumping fences and fishing, camping, partying and occasionally lighting fires -I have forwarded your
email on to our Open Space Management division, which actively patrols the Nature Preserve. In the event you
witness those types of activities in the future, please call the City's Preserve Information and Reporting line at (310)
491-5775. Open Space Management will be directing Preserve Deputies to this location to confront the violations.
Your concerns are a top priority for the City, and we believe that the actions identified above will address those
concerns.
If you have any further questions, or would like to discuss this further, please contact James O'Neill at (310) 544-
5247 or Katie Lozano at (310) 544-5267, whom are copied on this email.
Respectfully,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310-544-5292
From: Fred Bruning <fbruning@centercaLcom>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 8:59AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: debbie.schneider@balimgmt.com; coutureclassics@aol.com
Subject: Brush clearance in the preserve areas and on the bluff at Ocean Front Estates
Mr. Doug Willmore
City Manager
Rancho Palos Verdes, California
As a resident of Ocean Front Estates, I am requesting that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes take immediate corrective action of
the dangerous overgrown brush areas around our immediate community. Both the preserve areas and the areas along the
bluffs are dangerously overgrown with weeds and brush that have not been remediated or touched since we moved into our
home in 2012, and my guess is many years before that.
The bluff areas especially are vulnerable, since the area is subject to frequent visitors from outside our community, often
jumping the fences and fishing, camping, partying or occasionally lighting fires within the restricted areas. Since both these
2
areas are restricted, we as residents are not allowed to take remediation efforts to protect our homes, but must instead rely
on the city to take action.
I ask that you make this a top priority for the city, and please let me know if there are others steps I might take to bring this to
a higher level of attention.
Best regards,
Fred W. Bruning
11 Via Del Cielo
Rancho Palos Verdes
fbruniQg@centercal.com
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Elias Sassoon
Sunday, November 17, 2019 1:55 PM
damajane215@gmail.com
CC; CityCierk; Ara Mihranian; James O'Neill
Subject: FW: Brush Clearance in Ocean Front Estates -attention Mayor and City Council Members
Dear Mr. Sicherman & Ms. Stewart:
Thank you for your email expressing concerns with brush clearance. Your email will be considered in the late correspondence
regarding this item.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC), the habitat managers for the Preserve, is requesting grant funding from
the City Council to remove non-native acacia shrubs from certain areas of the Preserve. The City Council will be considering
the PVPLC's request at its upcoming Tuesday, November 19, 2019 meeting, and the areas around Oceanfront Estates are
discussed on pages 3 and 4. You can review the staff report on the City's website at the following link:
https :/I rpv .gran icus.com/M eta Viewer. ph p ?view _id=5&eve nt_id= 1293&meta_id= 77009
If the City Council approves the PVPLC's request, the removal of acacia from the area will go a long way towards addressing
your concerns. According to PVPLC's proposal, work can be completed in 6-8 weeks, so we would anticipate such work would
be completed by mid-January, depending on when work is started. Additionally, Cris Sarabia of PVPLC stated that they will also
address areas of mustard that he discussed with Lisa Levine and another board member when they met a few weeks ago, but
that would be after the acacia removal project.
Additionally, the City is working with the County Department of Agriculture to identify appropriate methods for fuel
modification, including clearing and/or thinning of areas that are within 200 feet of structures.
Your concerns are a top priority for the City, and we believe that the actions identified above will address those concerns.
If you have any further questions, or would like to discuss this further, please contact James O'Neill at (310) 544-5247 who is
copied on this email.
Regards,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310-544-5292
-----Original Message-----
From: Jane Stewart <damajane215@gmail.com> On Behalf Of Jane Stewart
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 7:45AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
1
ij.
Subject: Brush Clearance in Ocean Front Estates-attention Mayor and City Council Members
We are urging you in the City Council to fund brush clearance for our highly inflammable City areas in Ocean Front Estates. We
have an active HOA and home owners who keep our private landscape safe from fires but there are numerous open City areas
in need of regular clearing of dead brush and the highly inflammable acacia to be safe. We personally are concerned about the
huge area directly behind our home, 72 Via Del Cielo, that accumulates dead brush, scrubby trees and fire loving acacia. It
cries out for regular clearance. We also have high winds on the peninsula that heighten our home's vulnerability if a fire were
to get going. Please include funding for our Ocean Front Estates area in the City's budget on Tuesday, November 19.
Thank you, Jerry Sicherman and Jane Stewart
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Levine:
Elias Sassoon
Sunday, November 17,2019 1:52PM
Lisa Levine
CC; CityCierk; James O'Neill; Ara Mihranian
FW: Brush/invasive species removal
Thank you for your email expressing concerns with brush clearance. Your email will be included in the late correspondence for
this item.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC), the habitat managers for the Preserve, is requesting grant funding from
the City Council to remove non-native acacia shrubs from certain areas of the Preserve. The City Council will be considering
the PVPLC's request at its upcoming Tuesday, November 19, 2019 meeting, and the areas around Oceanfront Estates are
discussed on pages 3 and 4. You can review the staff report on the City's website at the following link:
https:/ I rpv .gran icus.com/M eta Viewer. ph p ?view _id =5&event_id= 1293&meta _id = 77009
If the City Council approves the PVPLC's request, the removal of acacia from the area will go a long way towards addressing
your concerns. According to PVPLC's proposal, work can be completed in 6-8 weeks, so we would anticipate such work would
be completed by mid-January, depending on when work is started. Additionally, Cris Sarabia of PVPLC stated that they will also
address areas of mustard that he discussed with you and another board member when they met a few weeks ago, but that
would be after the acacia removal project.
Additionally, the City is working with the County Department of Agriculture to identify appropriate methods for fuel
modification, including clearing and/or thinning of areas that are within 200 feet of structures.
Your concerns are a top priority for the City, and we believe that the actions identified above will address those concerns.
If you have any further questions, or would like to discuss this further, please contact James O'Neill at {310) 544-5247 who is
copied on this email.
Regards,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310-544-5292
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Levine< lisalevine2@icloud.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 12:46 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: James O'Neill <joneill@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
1 if.
Subject: Brush/invasive species removal
TO : RPV CITY COUNCIL
FROM: OCEAN FRONT ESTATES HOA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
RE: APPROVAL OF FUNDING FOR BRUSH CLEARANCE
*******************************************************************************************************
**************************************************************
Good afternoon,
It is our understanding that the City Council will be meeting on November 19 to vote on which areas of RPV receive the
necessary funds for brush clearance.
Our Board of Directors recently met with Cris Sarabia, the Conservation Director of the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy. We
pointed out the extreme fire hazard from dense brush and acacia that surrounds Ocean Front Estates and its 77 homes. He
agreed that the brush needs to be cleared but said it is up to the vote of the City Council as to which areas get funding.
With so much of California going up in flames, please consider our plea to get this clearance on the schedule as soon as
possible. Lots 80, 81, 82 and 83 all need immediate action. We have had many emails and phone calls from our residents who
are seriously concerned about wildfire in our area and the fuel surrounding our homes.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Lisa Levine
HOA Board President
Ocean Front Estates
310/714-0555
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Dessy Family,
Elias Sassoon
Sunday, November 17, 2019 1:48 PM
lesliechambers@hotmail.com
CC; CityCierk; James O'Neill
FW: Brush abatement
Thank you for your email expressing concerns with brush clearance. Your email will be included in the late correspondence as
it relates to this item.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC), the habitat managers for the Preserve, is requesting grant funding from
the City Council to remove non-native acacia shrubs from certain areas of the Preserve. The City Council will be considering
the PVPLC's request at its upcoming Tuesday, November 19, 2019 meeting, and the areas around Oceanfront Estates are
discussed on pages 3 and 4. You can review the staff report on the City's website at the following link:
https:/ /rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&event_id=1293&meta_id=77009
If the City Council approves the PVPLC's request, the removal of acacia from the area will go a long way towards addressing
your concerns. According to PVPLC's proposal, work can be completed in 6-8 weeks, so we would anticipate such work would
be completed by mid-January, depending on when work is started. Additionally, Cris Sarabia of PVPLC stated that they will also
address areas of mustard that he discussed with Lisa Levine and another board member when they met a few weeks ago, but
that would be after the acacia removal project.
Additionally, the City is working with the County Department of Agriculture to identify appropriate methods for fuel
modification, including clearing and/or thinning of areas that are within 200 feet of structures.
Your concerns are a top priority for the City, and we believe that the actions identified above will address those concerns.
If you have any further questions, or would like to discuss this further, please contact James O'Neill at (310) 544-5247 who is
copied on this email.
Regards,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
-----Original Message-----
From: leslie chambers <lesliechambers@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 9:15AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Brush abatement
Dear Council Members,
1
Oceanfront Estates is a beautiful area and a wonderful place to live. We are so proud of our city and home. We understand
that the thick brush may not be cleared and we are very concerned due to the multiple fires in other areas. We are asking that
hopefully there can be something done before anything tragic happens to our area and homes.
Thank you for your time, attention and anything you can do.
The Dessy Family
25 Via Del Cielo
RPV
Sent from my iPhone
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
James O'Neill
Friday, November 15 , 2019 4:44 PM
Cris Sarabia; Kathy
Subject:
Adrienne Mohan; Elias Sassoon; CityManager; Katie Lozano ; CityCierk
RE: PVPLC Fuel Grant CC Agenda 11/19/2019
Kathy and Cris,
To be clear on the question of annual mowing of mustard -the City only addresses mustard in areas that are within 200 feet of
structures, which is the definition of Fuel Modification zones.
As for the name of the spring-with very little research, it appears that PVPLC's maps utilize Google Maps as a base layer,
which labels the creek as Kelvin Canyon Creek, not the spring. So, it is highly possible that the .m.dD.g is Indian Wells Spring,
with the resulting wate r flow having a separate name. If I find any evidence to the contrary, I will be sure to share it.
James S. O'Neill, MPM
Project Manager, Department of Public Works
(3 I 0) 544-524 7 (Oftlce)
joneill@rpvca.gov
~ C ity o[Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
From: Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 2:48PM
To: Kathy <ksnell0001@aol.com>
Cc: Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; James O'Neill <joneill@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>;
CityManager <C ityManager@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <KatieL@ rpvca.gov >
Subject: Re: PVPLC Fuel Grant CC Agenda 11/19/2019
Good Afternoon Kathy ,
Be low are answers to your questions and I have attached the updated map. If you have any further
questions about the projects , don't hesitate to email me or call me at 310 -541-7613 x207.
Please note that the map on A-3 for the acacia removal north of Vanderlip Drive in red is also colored
1
red on the south side of Vanderlip.
-Is the plan to remove acacia on the south sid e which is private property? I have adjusted the map to
accurately represent the work to be accompplished to the best of our knowledge. We will not remove
Acacia in the private property areas.
-Why isn 't the majority of acacia growing north of Vanderlip on Kelvin Canyon Creek aka Indian
Well Spring colored red on the map indicating removal? Acacia overtook the Indian Well Spring area
after the 1 973 fire explod ed the acacia pods causing the seeds to spread . This area has yet to be
mapped. It is a very hard area to access for mapping as well as for work to be done. It is something
we will consider and figure out the best avenue for implementation.
-Will a ll the acacia be removed within 500' of north ofVanderlip up to Horton 's property? If not ,
why not? Is Horton's property 85 Vanderlip Drive? I have adjusted the map to reflect that area as part
1
ofthe project. We did not include it in the original map because of the issue of mapping it , but we did
plan to go in there. We will be addressing this area carefully and "cherrypicking" the Acacia from in
between the native stand there.
Will the 8-1 0 ' high dry mustard be mowed annually in this same area? If not, why not? The city
already deals with the mustard in this area as part of the fuel mod efforts.
-When grinding acacia branches , why are the seeds spread to sprout in non-acacia areas? For fire
1 safety , why aren 't the acacia seeds being removed from the Preserve? Acacia chips are being removed
where possible. In certain locations , chipper trucks cannot access the areas due to the soils
looseness. Where possible , we will remove the chipped Acacia. Areas with chips left on site will be
monitored over the years and Acacia seedlings will be pulled.
-Will the workers be warned to watch for bio-hazards as home less have been reported living in the
acacia tree area just below Eucalyptus trail? Yes. All projects begin with a tailgate meeting addressing
all safety issues and biological sensitivites of the area. Daily check-ins occur to assure that all
requirements are being met. I would like more information on the homeless encampment so we can
relay accurate info to the proper enforcement agencies.
-How was the historic name oflndian Well Spring changed to Kelvin Canyon Creek? I will ask
around and get the answer for you.
Respectfu ll y,
Cris Sarabia
Conservation Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
csarabia@pvplc.org
310-541-7613 x207
"Preserving land and restoring habitat for the education and enjoyment of
all."
On Thu , Nov 14 ,2019 at 3:34PM Kathy <ksnell0001@aol.com> wrote:
Hi Adrienne,
When will you be able to send me a corrected map for A -3 and confirm that it will be corrected for the agenda item
on Tuesday? The private property on the south side of Vanderlip needs to be removed from the red shaded acacia
removal Preserve area. Calculations need to be corrected.
I hope you will also be cutting all acacia on the north side of Vanderlip Driveway.
It is unnecessary for us to discuss the items. Please feel free to email me for any clarification you would like or
email me with your answers to my questions.
Thank you so much for removing the acacia bushes the homeless live in.
Thanks , Kathy
On Nov 14 ,2019 , at 2:31 PM , Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org> wrote:
Hi Kathy ,
Thank you for your email and questions . We would appreciate setting up a time to call or meet with
you to further discuss your questions . Would you be available Monday?
2
Thank you,
Adrienne
Adrienne Mohan
Executive Director
Pa los Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
916 Silver Spur Road #207
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
www.pvplc.org
(310) 54 1-7613 x203
(31 0) 930-4332 (cell)
Preserving land and restoring habitat for the enjoyment and educat ion of all.
loin our mailing list
Join us on <imageOO l .gif>
On Thu , Nov 14 , 2019 at 1:24PM 'Kathy' via Information <info @ pv plc.org> wrote:
Gentlemen ,
Please note that the map on A-3 for the acacia removal notih of Vanderlip Drive in red is also
colored red on the south side of Vanderlip.
-Is the plan to remove acacia on the south side which is private property?
-Why isn't the majority of acacia growing north of Vanderlip on Ke lvin Canyon Creek aka Indian
Well Spring co lored red on the map indicating removal? Acacia overtook the Indian Well Spring
area after the 197 3 fire exploded the acacia pods causing the seeds to spread .
-Will all the acacia be removed within 500 ' of north ofVanderlip up to Horton 's property? If not ,
why not?
Will the 8-1 0' high dry mustard be mowed annually in this same area? If not , why not?
-When grinding acacia bran ches, why are the seeds spread to sprout in non-acacia areas? For fire
safety, w hy aren 't the acacia seeds being removed from the Preserve?
-Will the workers be warned to watch for bio-hazards as homeless have been reported living in the
acacia tree area just below Eucalyptus trail?
-How was the historic name oflndian Well Spring changed to Kelvin Canyon Creek?
Any questions , please feel free to call 310-707-8876.
Thank you in advance for your responses.
Kathy Snell
8 Vanderlip Driveway
Sent from my iPhone
3
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, November 18, 2019 9:53 AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Ocean Front Estates Brush Clearance
From: Larry Carapellotti <larryc3@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 9:53AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: lisalevine2@icloud.com
Subject: Ocean Front Estates Brush Clearance
RPV City Council Members,
It is our understanding that the City Council will be meeting on November 19 to vote on which
areas of RPV receive the necessary funds for brush clearance.
Our Board of Directors recently met with Cris Sarabia, the Conservation Director of the Palos
Verdes Land Conservancy. We pointed out the extreme fire hazard from dense brush and acacia
that surrounds Ocean Front Estates and its 77 homes. He agreed that the brush needs to be
cleared but said it is up to the vote of the City Council as to which areas get funding.
With so much of California going up in flames, please consider our plea to get this clearance
on the schedule as soon as possible. Lots 80, 81, 82 and 83 all need immediate action. We
have had many emails and phone calls from our residents who are seriously concerned about
wildfire in our area and the fuel surrounding our homes.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Larry Carapellotti
VP -OFE HOA Board
larryc3@cox. net
Cell: 818-519-8520
1
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, November 18, 2019 8:04 AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Brush clearance and fire prevention
From: Kathleen Fulmer <katiefulmer@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 7:04PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Brush clearance and fire prevention
Attn: Mayor and City Council Members
I am a longtime resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, and my home is located in Ocean Front Estates next to
the Vicente Bluffs Reserve. The Ocean Front development is surrounded by overgrown dead brush, both
in the preserve areas along Palos Verdes Drive and along the bluff. This dead brush is highly flammable
and poses a very real fire threat to our homes and the residents who live here. I urgently request that the
brush abatement of the surrounding areas be funded and executed. Additionally, this area receives a lot of
foot traffic and I have seen many people smoking as they are walking. More 'No Smoking' signs need to
be displayed in the area, especially along public trails.
Thank you.
Kathleen M. Fulmer
57 Paseo della Luz
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: 310-377-4660
Fax: 310-377-9928
1
From: James O'Neill
Sent:
To:
Thursday, November 14, 2019 4:08PM
CityCierk
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: PVPLC Fuel Grant CC Agenda 11/19/2019
191119 CC PVPLC Fuel Grant. pdf; A TT00001.txt
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy <ksnell0001@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 1:24 PM
To: James O'Neill <joneill@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov>;
info@pvplc.org
Cc: ksnell0001@aol.com
Subject: PVPLC Fuel Grant CC Agenda 11/19/2019
Gentlemen,
Please note that the map on A-3 for the acacia removal north of Vanderlip Drive in red is also colored red on the south side of
Vanderlip.
-Is the plan to remove acacia on the south side which is private property?
-Why isn't the majority of acacia growing north of Vanderlip on Kelvin Canyon Creek aka Indian Well Spring colored red on the
map indicating removal? Acacia overtook the Indian Well Spring area after the 1973 fire exploded the acacia pods causing the
seeds to spread.
-Will all the acacia be removed within 500' of north of Vanderlip up to Horton's property? If not, why not?
Will the 8-10' high dry mustard be mowed annually in this same area? If not, why not?
-When grinding acacia branches, why are the seeds spread to sprout in non-acacia areas? For fire safety, why aren't the acacia
seeds being removed from the Preserve?
-Will the workers be warned to watch for bio-hazards as homeless have been reported living in the acacia tree area just below
Eucalyptus trail?
-How was the historic name of Indian Well Spring changed to Kelvin Canyon Creek?
Any questions, please feel free to call 310-707-8876.
Thank you in advance for your responses.
Kathy Snell
8 Vanderlip Driveway
1
_____________ ._ __________________________________________________________________________ ___
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Thursday, November 14, 2019 1:27 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Flammable brush around Oceanfront homes
-----Original Message-----
From: Darcy Kopcho <dkopcho@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 10:09 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Debbie Schneider <debbie.schneider@balimgmt.com>
Subject: Flammable brush around Oceanfront homes
To our City Council members:
We have lived in Rancho Palos Verdes, in the Oceanfront Homes complex, for 18 years. We have watched as our neighborhood
has grown into a lovely place, and we have always valued the walking trails and open space around our home.
We're very concerned about the abundance of flammable bush around us, and would like to petition the city council to include
our area of RPV in the brush clearance budget.
Thank you, Richard and Darcy Kopcho
Sent from my iPad
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
City Clerk's Office,
James O'Neill
Wednesday, November 13, 2019 12:47 PM
CityCierk
Elias Sassoon; Ara Mihranian
FW: Additional Funding for Acacia Removal and Dry Weed Mowing
Below is late correspondence received related to the PVPLC grant request item for the November 19th City Council meeting ...
James S. O'Neill, MPM
Project Manager, Department of Public Works
(310) 544-5247 (Office)
joneill@rpvca.gov
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
-----Original Message-----
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 12:28 PM
To: 'Jim York' <theyorkproperties@gmail.com>
Cc: Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; James O'Neill <joneill@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Additional Funding for Acacia Removal and Dry Weed Mowing
Thank you, Jim.
I will make sure James O'Neil receives this email to provide to the Council as late correspondence.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
a ram@ rpvca .gov
www. rpvca .gov
Ill Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential
and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized
dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
1 'f.
-----Origina I Message-----
From: Jim York <theyorkproperties@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 10:01 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>
Subject: Additional Funding for Acacia Removal and Dry Weed Mowing
Hi Ara
I am strongly in favor of the approval of additional funding to the PVP Land Conservancy for removal of the acacia and dry
weeds in the Nature Preserve . This area as it now exists is a major fire hazard
Jim York
2