Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20200721 Late Correspondence
Lawrence C. Baker Jr. 1 0 Pas eo de Pi no Rancho Pa los Verdes, CA 9 0 275-6383 July 21, 2020 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: -We have been residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rancho Palos Verdes Community Associations for over 33 years. We strongly object to the proposed relocation of the utility poles from the North side of Crest Road to the South side adjacent to the entrance to our gated community. We sympathi ze with Mr. Funicello's desire to enhance the aesthetics of his property, but it should not be accomplished at the expense of our Community Association. Mr. Funicello purchased his property with full knowledge of the utility poles and lines proximity to his home .Those poles and lines have been in place for over forty years and when their home was built. Apart from numerous procedural and unlawful errors made by contractors ,the city and Mr.Funicello, valuable trees have been destroyed without city approval. A straightforward and cost -effective compromise would be to require that lines be placed underground -The current plan calls for 270 out of 300 feet to be placed underground-the permit should only be granted if the remaining 30 feet are underground. All work should be paid for by Mr. Funiciello, since only his property would be enhanced. Respectfully submitted, ---mA--fln-f-/1 ~ c ~ Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence C. Baker Jr. ~ AG ENDA ITEM : ~6\!..,__ ____ _ RECEIV ED FROM: '-_ Ill fa. IU j.(p.~':'\ e-n w-e 11\A to f-....... ~ AND MADE PARTOF THE RECOR,D AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF : 1/ & ~ Z.~~:t OFFIC E OF THE CITY CL ERK t:,___...,.-....-.......,.._,. ....... , " "1(8lii'lo.c __ _. AND MA E PART OF THE RECO n D AT THE 1 COUNCIL MEETING OF: 1(2-\ l-o \')FFICE OF THE CITY CLERK .--..,..------- TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF Rf\NCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK JULY 21, 2020 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting. Item No. 2 Description of Material Email exchange between Director of Public Works Sassoon and: Tony and Maria Elena Todora; Andrea Zoeckler; Sue Murat; Matt and Tracy Beecher Respectfully submitted, ~ L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\20200721 additions revisions to agenda docx From: Sent: To: Cc: Maria Elena Todora <mariaelenatodora@co x.net > Monday, July 20, 2020 11 :38 PM Elias Sassoon CC ; CityCierk; CityManager Subject: Re: FW: Relocation of utility pole s p lu s 3867 Crest Rd . RPV H e llo E lia s I neglected to write m y address on the email. It is 10 A venida De Rosa , Rancho Palos Verdes , Ca 90275 Maria E lena To dora On Jul y 20 , 2 020 at 11 :22 PM E lias Sassoon <esassoon @rpvca.gov> wrote: Good Evening: Thanks for reaching out to us . Your email wi l l be inc l uded in the late correspondence for this item. 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 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID- 19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk -ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed . For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: Maria Elena Todora <mariaelenatodora@cox.net> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 5:10PM To: CC <CC@rpvca .gov > Subject: Relocation of utility poles plus 3867 Crest Rd . RPV Ci ty Co uncil members 1_. We are residents of Rancho Palos Verdes Estates and we are opposed to the relocation of the 3867 Crest Road utility poles,line and high voltage equipment into the grove of trees and across the street on the South of Crest. This would be a fire hazard. The relocation planning has been going on for awhile with out informing us and we the neighbors affected have a right to be informed. Respectfully Tony and Maria Elena Todora 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late carr Teresa Takaoka Tuesday , July 21, 2020 2:26PM Enyssa Momoli FW: 3867 Utility Pole Relocation Project From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 1:38PM To: susan@fijijoeturmeric.com Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca .gov>; CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov> Subject: 3867 Utility Po le Relocation Project Good Afternoon : Thanks for reaching out to us . Your ema il w i ll be i ncluded in the late correspondent regarding this project. Regards, El ias K. Sassoon, Director Department of Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd . Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Te l: 310-544 -5335 Fax : 310-544 -5292 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk -ups are limited to one person at a time . Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed . For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: Susan Murat <susan@fijijoeturmeric.com > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 10:33 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca .gov > Subject: 3867 Utility Pole Relocation Project Councilmembers- I am a homeowner in the RPV Estates and am writing to communicate my opposition to the proposed relocation of utility po les and high voltage equipment to the grove of trees on the South side of Crest. It appears that we hom eowners have not been provided with documentation that will enable us to make an informed decision about the safety of this proposed move . It is fair and reasonable to provide copies of permits, proposals, environmental reports, drawings, plans and all pertinent documents regarding the relocation of the poles and equipment to the homeowners . I do not see how a decision can be made on this issue without us being given the chance to review the above mentioned documents, and propose that such decision be delayed until documentation is provided and reviewed . I don't think it is wise or necessary to move more electrical equipment to the South side of Crest and suggest that an alternative be explored. It's unfortunate that a decision was made at some point to build a home on a property that has five utility poles. Nevertheless, it was done and it is not the responsibility of RPV Estates to allow placement of the poles on its property because it no longer works for the owner. The most reasonable alternative would be for the lines to be placed underground . Thank you, SUE MURAT Founder Fiji Joe Turmeric, LLC F[i[ioeturmeric .com 2 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Go od M orning, Thanks for reach ing out to us . Eli as Sassoon Tuesday, July 21, 2020 8:20AM andrea.zoeck ler@gmai l.com CC; CityC ierk; CityManager FW: Crest Utility Po les Your emai l will be included in the late correspondence for this item. 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 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines . Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time . Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: Andrea Zoeckler <andrea.zoeckler@gmail.com > Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 9:17PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov > Subject: Crest Utility Poles Co un cilmembers- My name is Andrea Zoeckler and I am a homeowner in RPV Estates and I strongly oppose the re location of the 3867 Crest utility poles and high voltage equipment. 1 1 . I have been a Rancho Palos Verde resident for over 20 years and I am surprised that the city is proposing to relocate the utility poles which would compromise the community's beauty and create a fire danger. What is surprising is that there is a much better alternative available that does not compromise either the beauty or safety of the community which would be to place all the lines underground for the entire 300 feet rather than just the current 270 feet. This is not a request for special treatment or rights at the expense of other RPV residents. Mr. Funiciello purchased his property with full knowledge of the utility poles, which have been in place for over 40 years. I am again surprised that the City is participating in this arrangement. As residents of the city, the community looks to our elected officials to protect our interests and enforce the law. By permitting this relocation under these circumstances, the City is ignoring the rule of law and its consistent application. To reiterate, a straightforward and cost-effective compromise would be to require that all lines be placed underground. The current plan calls for 270 out of 300 feet to be placed underground. The permit should only be granted if the remaining 30 feet and associated high voltage equipment are placed safely undergrounded. In addition, all work should be funded by Mr. Funiciello. Thank you for taking my interest into account. Andrea Zoeckler 3 8 paseo de Castana RPV, CA 90275 310 962-2822 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Good Afternoon, Thanks for reaching out to us. Elias Sassoon Tuesday , July 21, 2020 2:08PM thebeechers@co x.net CC; CityCierk; CityManager; William Wynder FW: We Oppose the Proposed 3867 Utility Pole Relocation Project on the Regular Agenda for the July 21 City Council Meeting . Would You Want Utility Poles Relocated To Your Property?!? Your email will be included in the late correspondence regarding this project. Regards, Elias K. Sassoon , Director Department of Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd . Rancho Palos Verde s, CA 90275 Tel : 310-544-5335 Fax: 310-544 -5292 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines . Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Halt please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk -ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed . For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: thebeechers@cox.net <thebeechers@cox.net > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 1:41PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov > Subject: We Oppose the Proposed 3867 Utility Pole Relocation Project on the Regular Agenda for t he July 21 City Counci l Meeting. Would You Want Utility Poles Relocated To Your Property?!? Councilmembers- I am a resident of RPV Estates and I am opposed to the relocation of the 3867 Crest utility poles and high voltage equipment into the grove of trees on the South side of Crest. Would you want a utility pole relocated to your property? 1 2. My spouse and I have been Rancho Palos Verdes residents for over twenty years and I object to the proposed relocation. We do not want the visual blight or fire danger relocated onto our property. No one would. We are not asking for any special treatment or rights at the expense of other residents of the City. Mr. Funiciello purchased his property with full knowledge of the utility poles, which have been in place for over 40 years. We purchased our home with the poles exactly where they are, too. The pole location was reflected in each of our property values. Furthermore, our community does not have any utility poles, they are all underground, which was paid for when our neighborhood was developed. The poles service homes on the North side of the street and should remain there. We are outraged to learn of the City's participation in this process. Citizens look to their elected officials to protect their interests and enforce the law. By permitting this relocation under these circumstances, the City is encouraging and enabling anarchy and disrespect for the rule of law. A solution that would not burden others would be to require that all lines be placed underground. The current plan calls for 270 out of 300 feet to be placed underground-the permit should only be granted if the remaining 30 feet and associated high voltage equipment are underground. Another option is to move the poles to the North side of the street to allow better utilization of their property. All work should be paid for by Mr. Funiciello. Thank you for taking our interests into account. Matt and Tracy Beecher 2 Avenida De Camelia Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK JULY 20, 2020 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, July 21, 2020 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material G. 2. Revised Contract Email exchange between Director of Public Works Sassoon and Dale Spiegel Emails from: Giovanni and Tina Funiciello; Dale Spiegel and Kathy Campbell; Betty Attenello; Alberto and Brenda Duenas; Michael and Deborah Sedlachek; Frank Attenello Jr. Respectfully submitted, ~ L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\20200720 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT By and Between CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES and VALLEY MAINTENANCE CORP For CUSTODIAL AND JANITORIAL SERVICES (FY 2020-21,2021-22 AND 2022-23) 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw G. AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND VALLEY MAINTENANCE CORPORATION THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (herein "Agreement") is made and entered into on , 2020, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a California municipal corporation ("City") and VALLEY MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation ("Consultant"). City and Consultant may be referred to, individually or collectively, as "Party" or "Parties." RECITALS A. City has sought, by issuance of a Request for Proposals or Invitation for Bids, the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement. B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal or bid for the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article I of this Agreement, was selected by the City to perform those services. C. Pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, City has authority to enter into and execute this Agreement. D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein. OPERATIVE PROVISIONS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT 1.1 Scope of Services. In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide those services specified in the "Scope of Services" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the "services" or "work" hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "highest professional standards" shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work under similar circumstances. 1.2 Consultant's Proposal. The Scope of Service shall include the Consultant's scope of work or bid which shall be incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of such proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern. 1.3 Compliance with Law. Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder in accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and any Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is rendered. 1.4 California Labor Law. If the Scope of Services includes any "public work" or "maintenance work," as those lerrns are defined in California Labor Code section 1720 ct 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 l (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code relating to public works contracts and the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR") implementing such statutes. The work performed under this Agreement is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Consultant shall post job site notices, as prescribed by regulation. (b) Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall pay prevailing wages to the extent required by Labor Code Section 1771. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773 .2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request. By initiating any work under this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) determination of the prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Consultant shall post a copy of the same at each job site where work is performed under this Agreement. (c) Penalty for Failure to Pay Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates ofwages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw 2 Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to this Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor. (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 of Regulations Title 8, Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects. Consultant shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Consultant shall provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within sixty (60) days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant and each of its subconsultants shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement. (f) Eight-Hour Work Day. Consultant acknowledges that eight (8) hours labor constitutes a legal day's work. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810. (g) Penalties for Excess Hours. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. The Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Consultant or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day and forty ( 40) hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1815, work performed by employees of Consultant in excess of eight (8) hours per day, and forty ( 40) hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than one and one-half (1 Yz) 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 3 700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract." 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw 3 Consultant's Authorized Initials ---- (i) Consultant's Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor who will perform work under this Agreement, Consultant shall be responsible for such subcontractor's compliance with Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code, and shall make such compliance a requirement in any contract with any subcontractor for work under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor's compliance, including without limitation, conducting a review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor on a periodic basis or upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Consultant shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectifY any such failure by any subcontractor. 1.5 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments. Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the Consultant's performance of the services required by this Agreement, and shall indemnifY, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City hereunder. 1.6 Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform the City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant's risk until written instructions are received from the Contract Officer. 1.7 Care of Work The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents, plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City's own negligence. 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw 4 1.8 Further Responsibilities of Parties. Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible for the service of the other. 1.9 Additional Services. City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be undertaken unless a written order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant, incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the extra work, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the written approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to ten percent (1 0%) of the Contract Sum or $25,000, whichever is less; or, in the time to perform of up to one hundred eighty (180) days, may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increases, taken either separately or cumulatively, must be approved by the City Council. It is expressly understood by Consultant that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to services specifically set forth in the Scope of Services. Consultant hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to be provided pursuant to the Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than Consultant anticipates and that Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor. City may in its sole and absolute discretion have similar work done by other Consultants. No claims for an increase in the Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the procedures established in this Section are followed. 1.10 Special Requirements. Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in the "Special Requirements" attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit "B" and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit "B" shall govern. ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT. 2.1 Contract Sum. Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the amounts specified in the "Schedule of Compensation" attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for actual expenses, shall not exceed $283,176 (Two Hundred Eighty Three Thousand One Hundred Seventy Six Dollars) (the "Contract Sum"), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1.9. OJ 203.0006/655353.3 mgw 5 2.2 Method of Compensation. The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon completion; (ii) payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of the services, less contract retention; (iii) payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant's rates as specified in the Schedule of Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the performance of sub tasks, (b) contract retention is maintained, and (c) the Contract Sum is not exceeded; or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation. 2.3 Reimbursable Expenses. Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.4, 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 ofthe performance of the work with City is a critical component ofthe 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. 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw 6 ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE 3.1 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. 3.2 Schedule of Performance. Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in the "Schedule of Performance" attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer but not exceeding one hundred eighty (180) days cumulatively. 3.3 Force Majeure. The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant shall within ten (1 0) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer's determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of this Agreement, however caused, Consultant's sole remedy being extension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section. 3.4 Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding three (3) years from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit "D"). The City may, in its discretion, extend the Term by three additional 1-year terms. ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK 4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant. The following principals of Consultant ("Principals") are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith: 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw 7 Bruce Hwang Vice President/Contract Manager (Name] [Title] It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant's staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant's staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any such performance. 4.2 Status of Consultant. Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by 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 Elias Sassoon, Director of Public Works, or such person as may be designated by the City Manager. It shall be the Consultant's responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in writing by the City Manager, to sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this Agreement. 4.4 Independent Consultant. Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or control of Consultant's employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw 8 their number, compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any joint enterprise with Consultant. 4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment. The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered voluntarily or by operation of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise, without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty five percent (25%) of the present ownership and/or control of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No approved transfer shall release the Consultant or any surety of Consultant of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City. ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION 5.1 Insurance Coverages. Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of any services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City. (a) General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO "insured contract" language will not be accepted. (b) Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Services to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non- owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident. 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw 9 (c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three (3) years after completion ofthe services required by this Agreement. (d) Workers' compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer's Liability Insurance (with limits of at least $1 ,000,000). (e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated herein. (f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required in the Special Requirements in Exhibit "B". 5.2 General Insurance Requirements. (a) Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers' compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. (b) Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services hereunder by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants. (c) Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non- contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City's own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. (d) City's rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, 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. 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw 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 ofits subconsultants. (g) Enforcement of contract provisiOns (non-estoppel). Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights hereunder. (h) Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City. (i) Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a ten ( 1 0) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage. U) Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies. (k) Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing. (I) 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 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw 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 through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review. (n) Agency's right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate Consultant's compensation. ( o) Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these specifications unless approved by City. (p) Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant's performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies. (q) Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. 5.3 Indemnification. To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial, administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened (herein "claims or liabilities") that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable ("indemnitors"), or arising from Consultant's or indemnitors' reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant's or indemnitors' negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement, and in connection therewith: 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw 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, error or omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring as a result of City's sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent permitted by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City's negligence, except that design professionals' indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive termination of this Agreement. ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION 6.1 Records. Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the "books and records"), as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make records and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant's business, custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by Consultant's successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall fully 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw 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 Documents. All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes, computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the "documents and materials") prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use, reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant's guarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein. All subcontractors shall provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnifY City for all damages resulting therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents and materials that may qualify as "works made for hire" as defined in 17 U.S. C. § 101, such documents and materials are hereby deemed "works made for hire" for the City. 6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information. (a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer. (b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not, without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw 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 party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION 7.1 California Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 7.2 Disputes; Default. In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the default. This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part of the City to give notice of the Consultant's default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City's legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement. 01203 0006/655353.3 mgw 15 7.3 Retention ofFunds. Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant (whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by reason of Consultant's acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant's obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein. 7.4 Waiver. Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement. Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative. Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. 7.6 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections 905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement. 7.7 Liquidated Damages. Since the determination of actual damages for any delay in performance of this Agreement would be extremely difficult or impractical to determine in the event of a breach of 01203 0006/655353.3 mgw 16 this Agreement, the Consultant and its sureties shall be liable for and shall pay to the City the sum of $2,000 (Two Thousand Dollars) as liquidated damages for each working day of delay in the performance of any service required hereunder. The City may withhold from any monies payable on account of services performed by the Contractor any accrued liquidated damages. 7.8 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term. This Section shall govern any termination ofthis 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 fourteen (14) days' written notice to Consultant, except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. In addition, the Consultant reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon sixty (60) days' written notice to City, except that where termination is due to the fault of the City, the period of notice may be such shorter time as the Consultant may determine. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Except where the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the event the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the work product actually produced hereunder. In the event of termination without cause pursuant to this Section, the terminating party need not provide the non-terminating party with the opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2. 7.9 Termination for Default of Consultant. If termination is due to the failure of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated. 7.10 Attorneys' Fees. If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment. 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw 17 ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION 8.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees. No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms ofthis Agreement. 8.2 Conflict oflnterest. Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant's performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement. No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement. 8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination. Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class. 8.4 Unauthorized Aliens. Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisiOns of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § II 01 et seq., as amended, and in connection therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this Agreement, and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized aliens, Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw 18 liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred by City. ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 9.1 Notices. Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 and in the case of the Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of this Agreement. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in seventy-two (72) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section. 9.2 Interpretation. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply. 9.3 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument. 9.4 Integration; Amendment. This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void. 9.5 Severability. In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw 19 of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless. 9.6 Warranty & Representation of Non-Collusion. No official, officer, or employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which may affect his/her financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of "financial interest" shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be "remote" or "noninterests" pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration, or other thing of value as a result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s), omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money, consideration, or other thing of value to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. Consultant is aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other conduct resulting in such payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render this Agreement void and of no force or effect. Consultant's Authorized Initials --- 9. 7 Corporate Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 0!203.0006/655353.3 mgw 20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first-above written. ATTEST: Emily Colborn, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP William W. Wynder, City Attorney CITY: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a municipal corporation John Cruikshank, Mayor CONSULTANT: VALLEY MAINTENANCE CORP., a California corporation Name: Bruce M. Hwang Title: Vice President Name: Bruce Lee Title: President 11759 Telegraph Road Santa Fe Springs, California 90670 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. 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw 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 that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On , 2020 before me, , personally appeared , proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s ), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature:--------------- OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER 0 INDIVIDUAL 0 CORPORATE OFFICER 0 0 0 0 0 0 TITLE(S) PARTNER(S) 0 LIMITED GENERAL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TRUSTEE(S) GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTHER ______________________ _ SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: (NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)) 01203 0006/655353 3 mgw DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On , 2020 before me, , personally appeared , proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s ), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature:--------------- OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAP A CITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER 0 INDIVIDUAL 0 CORPORATE OFFICER 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJTLE(S) PARTNER(S) 0 LIMITED GENERAL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TRUSTEE(S) GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTHER~--------------------- SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: (NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)) 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES I. Consultant will perform the following custodial services (the Services). All of the foregoing Services to be provided by Consultant shall be performed in conformance with the State of California and the Los Angeles County Departments of Health standards related to cleaning, disinfecting, and other sanitation steps necessary to limit the spread of the novel corona virus known as COVID-19, as those standards may be adjusted from time-to-time: A. The Services will be conducted at the following locations: 1. City Hall offices (30940 Hawthorne Boulevard), including Administration, Finance, Public Works and Recreation & Parks departments. Consultant shall provide a vacuum, broom, mop and dust pan, to be left at City Hall for use by City staff during daytime hours; 2. Community Development offices (30940 Hawthorne Boulevard), including Planning, Building Safety and Code Enforcement divisions; 3. RPVTV (Channel 33) Cable Studio (30940 Hawthorne Boulevard); 4. Fred Hesse Jr. Community Center ("Hesse Park") (29301 Hawthorne Boulevard). Consultant shall provide a vacuum, broom, mop and dust pan at Hesse Park for use by City staff during daytime hours; 5. Ryan Park (30359 Hawthorne Boulevard); 6. Ladera Linda Community Center (32201 Forrestal Road); 7. Eastview Park (1700 Westmont Avenue); 8. Point Vicente Interpretive Center (30501 Palos Verdes Drive West); 9. Abalone Cove Shoreline Park (5970 Palos Verdes Drive South); and 10. Additional areas as assigned by the City's Maintenance Superintendent. Prior to completing on-call cleaning services. B. Furnish all labor, materials (except paper goods), supplies, and equipment necessary to provide cleaning for complete custodial maintenance services, to include the following: 1. 2. 01203.0006/655353.3mgw Restroom cleaning, restocking, and disinfecting; Trash can maintenance, collection, removal, and sanitization, inside and outside; A-1 3. Sweep, mopping, and vacuuming floors; 4. Clean and polishing desks and chairs; 5. Complete cleaning of kitchen including appliances; 6. Detail cleaning such as nightly spill and gum removal from all floors, carpets, and seat fabric; 7. Use back pack type hose vacuum cleaner to clean hard to reach areas- under the furniture and corners; 8. Utilize Consultant's unique Floor Intensive Program; and 9. Carpet extraction clean with truck mounted. II. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible work products to the City: A. Consultant will develop and maintain a daily, weekly, and monthly cleaning log and check list to ensure all tasks are completed according to the Consultant and City standards. The Cleaning log is to indicate date, time, and name of personnel that completed each tasks. The logs are to be submitted weekly to the City's Maintenance Superintendent, Mr. Juan Hernandez, unless otherwise directed by the Contract Officer. III. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2, during performance of the Services, Consultant will keep the City appraised of the status of performance by delivering the following status reports: A. Monthly Reports, verifying (to the satisfaction of the City) that all scheduled and on-call custodial services have been performed during the previous month, including the following: 1. dates and times that each required location were cleaned. 2. a summary, including the amounts, ofwaste collected and waste recycled; and 3. any other information that the City may require to verify that all required work has been performed. 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. 01203 0006/655353.3 mgw A-2 V. Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services: A. Bruce Hwang, Vice President I Contract Manager B. Vicky Amaro, On-Site Supervisor C. Alex Alvares, Lead Custodian 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw A-3 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw 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: Item Price Per Annual 3 Year Base No. Description Month Amount Amount City Hall Office 1 (30940 Hawthorne Boulevard) $ 1,750 $ 21,000 $ 63,000 (Administration, Public Works & Parks and Recreation) 2 Planning, Building & Code Enforcement $ 580 $ 6,960 $ 20,880 (30940 Hawthorne Boulevard) 3 Cable TV {Channel 33) Studio $ 146 $ 1,752 $ 5,256 4 Hesse Park $ 1,450 $ 17,400 $ 52,200 (29301 Hawthorne Boulevard) 5 Ryan Park $ 560 $ 6,720 $ 20,160 (30359 Hawthorne Boulevard) 6 Ladera Linda Community Center $ 520 $ 6,240 $ 18,720 (32201 Forrestal Road) 7 Eastview Park $ 410 $ 4,920 $ 14,760 (1700 Westmont Avenue) 8 Point Vicente Interpretive Center $ 1,320 $ 15,840 $ 47,520 (30501 Palos Verdes Drive West) 9 Abalone Cove Shoreline Park $ 410 $ 4,920 $ 14,760. (5970 Palos Verdes Drive South) Regular Cleaning Total $ 85,752 $ 257,256 Item Description Price Unit Annual 3 Year Base No. Amount Amount 10 Extra Work $ 0.12 per fe $ 8,640 $ 25,920 CONTRACT SUM ~ 94,392 ~ 283,176 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw C-1 II. A retention of ten percent (10%) shall be held from each payment as a contract retention to be paid as part of the final payment upon satisfactory completion of services. 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. The amount applicable to the invoice period. B. The Monthly Report. 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. Not Applicable 01203 0006/655353.3 mgw C-2 EXHIBIT "D" SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE I. Consultant shall perform all services timely in accordance with the following schedule. A. Consultant will conduct the Services on each night after the facility in question has closed to the public. The Services will be conducted seven (7) days a week, Monday through Sunday at each of the facilities, with the exception of City Hall, where the Services will only be conducted five (5) days a week, Monday through Friday. Consultant will conduct any additional cleaning based on the schedule submitted and approved by the Contract Officer. II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the following dates. A. The Cleaning Log will be delivered to City's Maintenance Superintendent, Mr. Juan Hernandez, unless otherwise directed by the Contract Officer, on a weekly basis. III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in accordance with Section 3.2. 01203.0006/655353.3 mgw D-1 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Thursday{ July 161 2020 10:20 AM CityCierk Subject: FW: 3867 Crest Road Attachments: Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.docx; poles on crest.mov; safety analysis.pdf Late corr From: Tina Funiciello <tngfuni@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 9:55AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: 3867 Crest Road -----Original Message----- From: Tina Funiciello <:trrgfuni@aol.com> To: john.cruikshank@rpvca.gov <john.cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; eric.alegria@rpvca.gov <eric.alegria@rpvca.gov>; .ls.©.0,.9.Y.9Sl@U?Y..9.9..:.9.Q.Y: <_ls.§..11....Q::£da@~ov>; .<i?Yid j)...@QJ.§Y.@I~..<UJQY: <Q§y:LQ..J?.rad l~.Y.@J:RVCfLgQY.>; Q?r:!2?I?.:..f~.rr..s.rQ@r.J2Y.Qi:LQQY. <pa rb_a ra . .fe rr<J.[Q@rP...Y.QiUJ..9..'£> Cc: ?§L'!?.?.9Q.CL@rJ2Y.Q.SL9.QY <§.?aS§.QQ!l@rQvca. gov>; Ar9.M.@l:Qy~g_y <f:\raM@myca .gpv>; yvwy.o_@l@avy§l.ttor.rr~.Y?.c..QQ.ill <ww.Y..o.9?l@'!.VY.!2.U.9rDS1Y§.:...<?.9._m >; arr.torttrne r@b_!) nton. com <§l_m orti m ~r.@.b.!J nto f1.,.QQJJJ> Sent: Man, Jul 13, 2020 7:37 pm Subject: 3867 Crest Road Greetings RPV city council, It was a pleasure to meet with you during the city council meeting last week on Tuesday, July 7. We really would love the opportunity for you to get to know us as a family and understand that we are very good people and great neighbors. We are not the type of people who come to city council meetings to bring unnecessary complaints or frivolous requests, but think it is important you hear from us because it seems you are hearing only one side of the story involving our project. We hope the statement we presented at the council meeting was informative, but understand how brief our time was, so we wish to follow up our presentation by attaching a copy of the statement we read, along with the pertinent attachments for you to view at length. We are new to the protocol city council meetings require, so our apologies if any requests we are asking may be unconventional, but we wish to invite you all to our home so that we can actually present our project to you at the site and engage dialogue about the plans. This would give you an opportunity to see what we have been through and understand the path the city has brought us down so that you could really take in the scope of the project in person. Would you please respond to this email with the best time and date for you to meet? We hope 1 to meet sometime between July 14-20 at anytime. We hope to be able to answer all questions and hopefully come to a resolution that will satisfy all. Best regards, Giovanni and Tina Funiciello cell 31 0-938-2859 2 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, We are submitting this statement and presenting it orally to you with the intent of summarizing the goals of our project including the important safety benefits of the project, and our bottom line legal position that over the course of several years, the City has made concrete, enforceable promises to us. As you will hear over the next few minutes, we followed all the rules, we did exactly what we were asked to do, and not only is the project we are proposing safer than the existing power line infrastructure, but failing to follow through with the City's promises up until now will result in a lawsuit, and one the City will not win. To explain the project briefly, this project entails the removal of 4 utility poles and 270 feet of overhead lines that are currently on the center of our property, condensing the number of poles to 3, and placing them across the street onto a parcel of city owned land approximately 100 yards away onto property owned by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. This project has been the subject of intense work, negotiation and collaboration with the City over the last five years. The result of those negotiations was a promise by the City that if we fulfilled the condition of replacing trees that were cut and we could demonstrate that the project would result in net safety advantages to the community, we could go forward. Over the last five years, and at considerable personal expense and effort, we have done each and every thing asked of us by the City. Each step of the process involved consultation, oversight and approval by the City. After each of the pre-conditions set by the City were met-the Project was approved. For your reference, we will provide the Council one of many communications we received and relied on from City officials telling us the project was approved. This one was from Michael Throne (director of RPV public works at this time) who stated, "Public Works ... would be amendable to the proposed utility relocation." (See email dated April 6, 2016, attached). Following this emailed permission, on April12, 2016, Mr. Throne and Doug Willmore (City Manager of RPV at this time) met us at our home, reviewed the Edison design and viewed the location where the poles would be moved. They both confirmed that the city approved of the placement of the poles on the parcel of RPV land and we could move forward with the project. The planning process continued and by 2018 we were ready to obtain our permit from the city for the project. We met with Elias Sassoon, who was the new RPV Public Works director. Based on his representations at our meeting, we were given further confirmation that we should proceed with our plans and the city would allow us to use the property across the street. Based on the repeated and express representations made to us by the City, we started work in June 2019. At that point, certain neighbors, who you have already heard from, began to protest the project. Despite our repeated efforts to meet and address the concerns of these neighbors, they would not budge, even though a land assessment proved that the complaining HOA had no legal rights to the land at issue, and no standing to complain. Indeed, when meeting with the HOA, RPV's Mr. Sassoon repetitively stated that our project was a "privately funded project using approved city property" and that the HOA had zero interest or standing to object to any part of our project. This property does in fact belong to the city of RPV. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Sassoon promised that we could expect the project would be complete "just in time for Christmas". Based on promises made by the City orally and in writing, we invested an additional $220,000.00 to pay Edison for the project. Once, again, the HOA started re-hashing old arguments to disrupt plans that were already agreed to by the City and paid for by us. None of those arguments have merit. As the safety analysis (attached hereto) prepared by the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, makes clear, our project would actually make any present risk far safer for all surrounding homes by reducing excess voltage and updating equipment. Bowing to political pressure, RPV imposed numerous additional conditions on our permit, none of which are required by the municipal code. Still we complied. At this point we requested a meeting with RPV. Mr. Sassoon, Bill Wynder (RPV city attorney) and Ara Vartanian (RPV city manager) all attended. During this meeting Mr. Wynder told us that if we fulfilled the condition of obtaining a safety analysis, he would fully endorse our project to the city council. As stated above, the safety analysis has been completed, and it demonstrates that the proposed project will be safer for the entire community by reducing the risk of serious injury associated with dense overhead power structure, and also reducing the risk of fire. This is truly a win-win for all. While going forward with the project will make the neighborhood safer for all, pulling out of the project at this juncture after promises have been made-and $320,000 paid by us in reliance on those promises-will result in protracted, expensive litigation, and the City will not win. Make no mistake, we followed the rules, we met each and every condition set for us, and we relied on the promises of multiple City officials-people who had authority to bind the City. It's too late to change the deal now, and we will take legal action if we are forced to. This is a matter of principle. On the other side of the equation you have unhappy neighbors. We are sorry about that because we have tried to understand and respond to neighborhood concerns. But at the end of the day, those neighbors have no legal standing over this privately funded project on public land. And if they want to underground all the lines and all the poles - I suggest they do what we did-pay for it. But it simply not fair and not legally defensible for us to bear any additional costs for a project long since approved. We strongly urge this Council to do what is right, and what the City has already promised, bearing in mind the HOA's complaints are completely unjustified and unreasonable. In fact, they stand to benefit tremendously from our project, including, but not limited to the following: 1. Safer neighborhood environment with new equipment and less overhead voltage; 2. Unobstructed view ... having the poles closer to the hill clears the line of sight from every home in the HOA. Presently, their view is obstructed by overhead lines; 3. The comparative values of all the homes in the neighborhood increase as the value of our home will increase once the poles are removed; Furthermore, there are 20 poles presently existing all the way along Crest on their side of the street (see video exhibit). None of these poles have posed any problem to the HOA. Yet they have a much greater amount of overhead lines and are in plain sight to anyone driving up to the HOA entrance. Our project puts only 3 more, which is ultimately consistent with the original line of poles, and these will be placed far after the driveway they enter to access their homes. Moreover, much of the existing foliage will camouflage the sight of these 3 poles. On the one hand you have an already approved project that would result in safer neighborhood for all, on the other eleventh hour claims by an HOA without standing, and without a legitimate basis for Complaint. We trust this Council will act accordingly, and appreciate your time and attention today. City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Attention: Elias K. Sassoon, Director Department of Public Works March 17, 2020 Dear Elias. I have reviewed the scope of the project and visited the site. The residential property located at 3867 Crest Road has an unusually heavy concentration of overhead powerlines, which poses a risk to the residents. Accidental contact with overhead high-voltage lines can result in serious bodily injury or death, risk of downed powerlines on this property in the event of a storm, high winds, or other occurrence is also of concern. Undergrounding aids in fire prevention, improved safety, and the added benefit of undergrounding is the aesthetic quality of the landscape. The scope of the project to include the placement of the new poles and lines is under the direction of SCE and all precautions will be taken to prevent any interference with these new poles and powerlines. It is my understanding that some action (tree removal) has already taken place. SCE adopted the California Public Utilities Commission's 2017 guidelines that include high fire hazard areas where SCE is trimming 12 feet of clearance (at the time of trim) from a power line to ensure the minimum required clearance is never threatened. Additionally, SCE has a Vegetation Management Program, which covers the following: Vegetation management is a broad term that describes work Southern California Edison does to minimize the impact trees and vegetation have on providing safe and reliable electric service. It includes hazard tree assessments, tree pruning and removal, brush removal and weed abatement. It is my professional opinion that the undergrounding portion of this project, which entails removing four power poles and approximately 270ft of overhead lines, will result in a safer environment. Undergrounding is a safer alternative than the current powerline configuration for the residents at 3867 Crest Road and surrounding properties, it will be more aesthetically pleasing, and allow the property owner to fully utilize this portion of their parcel. The additional phase of the project that includes the relocation of powerlines, and installation of three new poles to the opposite side of Crest Road in the city's right-of-way, consists of roughly 30' of powerlines that will reconnect to existing power and presents no new or increased level of risk exposure. Senior Risk Manager California Joint Powers Insurance Authority 8081 Moody Street, La Palma, CA 90623 mfrancis@cjpia.org Enclosures El EUDT SORN ® UNDERGROUNDING En ergy for Wh at's Ahe ad ® UNDERSTANDING THE FACTS Faced with the threat of more frequent and catastrophic wildfires, California is implementing additional steps to make critical infrastructure more resilient. Southern California Edison continues to strengthen its electric grid. INSULATED WIRES SCE is implementing a var iety of innovative tools, technologies and practices to further protect customers and communitie s from the growing risks of wi ldfires. One of t he most effective ways to make the grid more resilient in high fire risk areas is the use of insulated wires, also known as covered conductors. While bare wire has been the tradit ional design standard for overhead power lines, insulated wire effectively and signifi cantly reduces the possibilities of objects contacting these lines and starting a wildfire. SCE is prioritizing the use of insulated wire on its overhead lines in high fire risk areas. UNDERGROUNDING SC E is also considering undergrounding where appropriate as an add itional risk mitigation measure . Underground systems can help reduce the risk of wi ldfir es and increase re li ability during high winds and storms by red ucing the ex posure of electrical infrastructure to extreme weather conditions . However, underground power lines take much longer to construct, ar e more costly and are more difficu lt to ma in tain and repair-particularly in mountainous and rocky terrain. In add it ion, communities may still have po les and w ires serv in g t h e telecommunications industry regardless of power lin es being unde rgrounded. Benefits Can red u ce freq ue ncy of outages duri ng stor ms Can r educe risk of wi ldfires caused by elect r ica l infrastructu re Can impr ove ne ig hborhood aesth etics Can prese nt fewer hazards for wildli fe REGULATION Drawbacks Cannot be visua ll y inspected Require longe r service interruptions to perform repairs and maintenance Can take much more time to install due large ly to perm itting and construction (e .g. traffic/road closures, trenching, enclos u re construction , cable pu ll ing and road res u rfaci n g requirements) Cost: -$3 m illion per mile (-$430,000 per mi le for covered cond u ctor), which wi ll lead to h igher customer r ate s SCE and the other state investor-owned ut ili ties are participating in a California Public Uti lities Commiss ion proceeding lo oking at t h e regulat io ns governing underground ing, known as Rule 20. The proceeding is looking at when and how cities and unincorporated ar eas of counties can request undergrou nding, including in high fire risk areas. When underground ing takes place under Ru le 20, the bulk of the costs associate d with such underg r ounding work is paid by ratepayers. Cit ies and co unti es interested in undergrounding can participate in the CPUC Rule 20 proceeding to share their perspectives. SCE has notified cities an d co unties in its service area of the curren t CPUC proceeding. Updated: 2/14/2019 El EUDiN SORN ® SCE TRIMS TREES TO KEEP YOU SAFE Energy for What's Ahead ® SCE t r im s trees near power l i ne s as a free servic e to customers to keep t he public safe. Trees will be trimmed t o create a minimum 12-foot clearance from a powe r line at the time of trim . HOW WILL I KNOW IF MY TREE IS BEING TRIMMED? A door hanger will be posted 30-45 days prior to trimming Customers will be contacted in person if heavy pruning or tree removal is required. For more informati on , vi sit SCE .com/safety/power-lines or call 800-655-4555 WHO CAN I CALL? The door hanger will list a contact number to call to discuss the t r ee trimming plan for your property . Upda t ed: 5/3/2019 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: late correspondence for Item 2. Megan Barnes Senior Administrative Analyst City Manager's Office City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310 544·-5226 rn barnes@rpvca .gov Megan Barnes Wednesday, July 15, 2020 11:45 AM CityCierk FW: Rancho Palos Verdes Estates HOA Request for 3867 Crest Road Staff Report Consideration and Inclusion HOA Comments for 3867 Crest Staff Report 7 -9.1.pdf; Essential Documents and Photos. pdf From: Dale Spiegel <spiegda@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 11:41 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Rancho Palos Verdes Estates HOA Request for 3867 Crest Road Staff Report Consideration and Inclusion Copied to the City email address for completeness. ----------Forwarded message --------- From: Dale Spiegel <spiegda@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:35 AM Subject: Fwd: Rancho Palos Verdes Estates HOA Request for 3867 Crest Road Staff Report Consideration and Inclusion To: <john.cruikshank@rpvca.gov>, <eric.alegria@rpvca.gov>, <ken.dyda@rpvca.gov>, <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>, <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>, Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>, William Wynder <wwynder@awattorneys.com> Cc: Kathy Campbell <kc111@cox.net> Dear City Council Members - As homeowners in Rancho Palos Verdes Estates opposed to the Funiciello pole relocation project, we have a number of objections to the incomplete and misleading Staff Report released last night in preparation for the July 21 hearing. We are particularly outraged by the Staff Report omitting our email and letter of July 9, copied and attached below, while including the Funiciello letter of July 13. Our July 9 correspondence is important to a complete record because it addresses critical new information not made available to us until the July 7 City Council Meeting. Moreover, in the interests of completeness and transparency, we do not understand why the Staff Report omits the attachments referenced in the July 13 letter from the Funiciellos. Open disclosure of the 1 d. complete history of this project has been one of our chief requests and lack of it is one of the chief failings of the process. Lastly for today, we request the right to be present and participate in any de facto City Council Meeting convened pursuant to the request in the Funciello letter of July 13. Thank you, and best regards. Dale Spiegel spiegda@gmail.com Kathy Campbell kc 111 @cox.net ----------Forwarded message --------- From: Dale Spiegel <spiegda@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 12:31 PM Subject: Rancho Palos Verdes Estates HOA Request for 3867 Crest Road Staff Report Consideration and Inclusion To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>, Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Cc: Kathy Campbell <kc lll@cox.net> Ara and Elias - On behalf of ourselves and the HOA, here are comments and a document list for the Staff Report to the hearing on 3867 Crest project, calendared for hearing at the July 21, 2020 City Council Meeting. We would appreciate these being reflected in that Report. If there are any questions or concerns, please let us know. If we should send these items to anyone else, please let us know. We assume that otherwise you will get them to the necessary parties. Many thanks for that. For convenience, as attachments to separate emails, I will send copies of most of the items on the Essential Documents list. I apologize for the inconvenience. Best regards Dale Spiegel 2 July 9, 2020 Via Email Mr. Ara M. Mihranian Mr. Elias Sassoon City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Rancho Palos Verdes Estates HOA Comments for 3867 Crest Road East Staff Report Consideration and Inclusion Dear Ara and Elias: We have prepared this document to ensure that important information is included in the Staff Report regarding the proposed relocation of utility poles on Crest Road. We respectfully request that these comments be addressed and reflected in the Staff Report. We also include an enclosure with selected documents that we consider important. Summary of Critical Points That Should be Addressed in the Staff Report 1. At the RPV City Council meeting on July 7, 2020 Mr. Funiciello confirmed that he has been working on this pole relocation project with the City, Southern California Edison ("SCE" or "Edison") and the other utilities for 5 years. We are disturbed that this complex closed door proceeding could go forward for such a length of time and yet generate no discoverable records (see response to Public Records Request dated August 20, 2019) and without affected neighboring property owners being notified or consulted in any fashion. 2. This project is a voluntary private cosmetic project initiated by the homeowner, in which SCE is acting purely as contractor. See CPUC letter dated March 3, 2020. It was not initiated to enhance SCE or other utility functionality or safety, and the history demonstrates that any such claim is an after-the-fact rationalization. 3. At least through November 5, 2019, Public Works may have been under the mistaken belief that SCE involvement meant there was a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN). See City Attorney Public Memo of that date, now corrected by the CPUC letter cited above. We are puzzled as to why Public Works did not request copies of applicable CPCNs if that was its belief, and also as to why the momentum apparently generated by that mistake seems to continue moving this project ahead. 4. We are troubled that the initial encroachment permit (dated May 6, 2019, since suspended) could be issued for a partial project ("bridge to nowhere") with no discoverable support for how it might be turned into a completed utility relocation project. 5. We are supremely troubled that contractors working for SCE and/or the homeowner felt so confident that the City would look the other way that they TWICE began work without proper permits-the first time in June 2019, and the second time in June 2020 (the latter action being taken in the face of proposed City Council review of the project!). What is going on in the regulatory process that encourages this behavior? 6. We are shocked that partial and tacit encouragement was given to this project with no fire safety review. The only review was done in January 2020 and was a cursory review at best. See CJPIA letter dated March 17, 2020. 7· Approval of the project necessarily involved the cutting of several mature trees. This was done as a first step on a Sunday and without a permit. Again -in complete defiance of the City's regulations. 8. Finally, even if the City determines to favor one homeowner over 76 others in this unnecessary project, we disagree with the City's conclusion that it has the legal authority to permit this use of its right of way easement for this private purpose. Expanded Discussion We acknowledge that there have been changes in personnel in both the City staff and the City Council since the project was initiated. We respectfully wish to bring forward the history of the project and our issues with respect to the process to the attention of the City Council without disrespecting any individuals. From the time that chain saws on a Sunday morning first made us aware of the project, residents of the Rancho Palos Verdes Estates Community Association (the "HOA'') have acted responsibly to bring this matter to City staffs attention in a timely and professional manner. In our dialog with the City over the last 13 months, we have been disappointed that our concerns and objections were met with rationalizations supporting the original project instead of any attempt to consider alternatives to mitigate those concerns. In sum, the response seems to be validation of the original "backdoor, under the radar" process favoring a single resident at the expense of 76 neighboring homeowners The City's costs in its ongoing efforts to justify the original project are being passed onto the remaining thousands of citizens of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. We believe that the Staff Report should address both staff costs and external costs such as ongoing fees paid to the City Attorney in defending this private project. The known process irregularities enumerated below are numerous. Lack of transparency is an egregious issue. Requests made in the summer of 2019 for Records under the California Public Records Act were returned omitting significant relevant information that should have been in the files. Not until the City Attorney produced an Exhibit in May 2020, were we able to obtain formal evidence that this project has been underway for 5 years (as Mr. Funiciello has since confirmed in his statement to the City Council on July 7, 2020). This project has been allowed to persist for over 5 years, WITHOUf ANY NOTICE-or attempt at notice-to any of the affected residents, in express violation of the federal and state Constitution, state law and City ordinances. Beginning with the HOA's initial complaint in June 2019, when trees were wantonly destroyed during an unpermitted entry, until the most recent unpermitted construction 2 activity in the electrical vault on Crest Road adjacent our homes on June 24, 2020, the Applicant has ignored City authority and flagrantly defied the permitting process. But for the actions of concerned and engaged residents, this project might well have proceeded improperly to completion. This encroachment permit must be denied, and this project terminated. Known Process Irregularities and Misrepresentations from 2015-2020. 1. Secretive Process and Lack of Transparency. This encroachment permit process has been under discussion between Mr. Funiciello, SCE and RPV Public Works since at least 2015. Throughout this entire period, there was no notice to affected neighbors and all documentation appears to be secret (none was produced pursuant to several public records requests). The record clearly establishes this pattern of secrecy. a. It defies belief that a detailed engineering project of this complexity could have been processed without abundant documentation. It would be even more alarming if such a project were in fact processed without documentation. b. It is unimaginable that the May 2019 permit issued to Mr. Funiciello and Crown Castle could have been issued without tacit review of the entire project. The Crown Castle permit was a "bridge to nowhere" as it relocated 2 poles without addressing the remaining poles and 300 feet of electric lines. By breaking the project into smaller piecemeal projects, the full scope of the project was concealed. Further, the Crown Castle permit issued was incomplete and clearly supplemented after the fact. c. Edison and the City are required to discuss such a pole relocation with other affected utilities -cable and telephone for example. It is unimaginable that this project could have taken place without documentation and discussion. d. At the roundtable meeting on July 31, 2019 in which the HOA was finally briefed on the project, it was apparent that the various parties other than the HOA. its residents and other affected neighbors had been coordinating for a long time. Verbal representations were made that the project was undertaken for the purpose of installing a swimming pool in what appears to be a public right of way -yet, as far as we are aware, the City has not addressed any permit for such a swimming pool. 2. Failure to address the public safety issues. a. Other parties including SCE might be chargeable with ignoring public safety concerns, but we do not understand how Public Works could sign off on an electric pole relocation project knowing that no safety study had been performed by any party. Yet the May 2019 permit was issued. Not until January 2020 was any safety analysis done, and that was done by CJPIA on a cursory level and without input from the City. Even though the CJPIA deals with utilities and cities, Mr. Funiciello stated that he was the party who dealt with that organization at the direction of the City Attorney. It is no 3 surprise that a self-serving report resulted. To date, no thorough safety study has been done by a qualified independent party. b. The CJPIA safety report is patently focused on rationalizing the project. Both Public Works and the CJPIA rely on an "undergrounding is always safer" rationale. Any safety concerns stemming from the existing historic pole locations should have been addressed when 3867 Crest was approved for construction in 2003. By implication, there was no significant safety issue when the construction permit was issued. That the current homeowner purchased in 2013 confirms that no safety concern existed on his part. Thus, it is confounding that the CJPIA's study is premised on the finding that "[t]he residential property at 3867 Crest Road has an unusually heavy concentration of overhead power lines, which poses a risk to the residents." Beyond that, the CJPIA report concedes the HOA's point that there is fire safety risk in the current project design by placing 3 poles carrying 16kv high voltage into a grove of trees, yet is there no consideration of alternatives to mitigate that risk which is knowingly created by the design of the project. c. If partial undergrounding has any significant public benefit in this situation, some combination of SCE and the City should be funding it. They are not. The common law of utility pole relocations mandates that Edison pay the costs of ensuring the safety of its lines. The case law establishes that when the relocation is undertaken solely to benefit a private party, the private party pays. Mr. Funiciello's private beautification project cannot shift the burden from his property to other private property owners. d. The permitting process, designed to protect the citizenry and provide notice and public hearing, was deliberately subverted and ignored. e. The structure of the project, with SCE acting "merely as contractor" for Mr. Funiciello seems calculated to avoid SCE's own rules relative to undergrounding and pole relocation. The CPUC confirms that the project structure avoids CPUC and SCE protective procedures -relying on the City to protect the public interest. e. Public Works staff repeatedly stated "Edison gets what it wants" as the rationale for failing to examine anything beyond minor details of this project. The City Attorney's November 5, 2019 Public Memo restates the requirements ofthe Public Utilities Code and the necessity for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity if the project is viewed as SCE engaging in its business as a public utility. f. The CPUC letter dated March 3, 2020 expressly rejects that Edison is acting as a public utility on this project-thus, SCE is not entitled to any favorable presumptions accorded to a public utility g. Throughout this process, safety review discussions end with an "SCE will cut any trees creating danger" rationale. This is echoed in the CJPIA analysis. In other words, granting a permit for this project is the functional equivalent of granting a permit 4 to cut trees in pursuit of a private project. This is contrary to RPV's regulatory scheme articulated, for example, in RPV Municipal Code 12.08.050. 3· Apparently, Mr. Funiciello and his contractor expected that the City would look the other way. a. The Crown Castle "bridge lo uowhere" permit (May 2019) and costs incurred under it were money wasted if the larger permit were not granted. No responsible owner or contractor would risk incurring the costs of breaking ground without high confidence that the project could be completed. b. The work performed by the contractor was not consistent with the permit it purported to be operating under. Obviously, there were complete plans in existence for the contractor to follow -which is why the work actually performed bore no resemblance to the defective Crown Castle permit. c. The contractor began work on a Sunday morning, absolutely contrary to RPV rules. This cannot be put down as a simple mistake. Combined with the fact of acting without a permit, there was a calculated expectation that RPV would not enforce its rules because City officials would not be working on a Sunday morning. This expectation was validated by the fact that the City, after being placed on notice on the next business day, Monday June 24, 2019 allowed the contractor to continue to work for several more days to complete conduit installation and other work instead of requiring the contractor to immediately stop work and restore the road surface. Furthermore, on June 28, well after the stop work order was issued and in effect, the contractor cut through the cable providing phone and internet service to Marymount College and the neighboring community. This is further evidence that the contractor believed there would be no City oversight to ensure that the contractor was acting in a safe manner and within the scope of the permit. d. SCE continues to ignore permitting requirements. Not part of the Funiciello project, but very on point to many of the HOA's concerns-on Saturday, December 7, 2019, Edison showed up in the vicinity of the Crest Road site with 6 trucks to perform a utility pole project despite the fact that its request for that permit had been expressly turned down by Public Works the day before. Vigilant residents voiced their concerns to the crew, which then tried to present several EXPIRED permits before ultimately packing up and going away. e. Furthermore, on June 24, 2020, SCE contractors once again, together with Mr. Funiciello, began working on the 3867 project without a permit. The work involved several vehicles and an extensive crew, who removed steel plates in the street and entered the electrical vault. When questioned on site, after representing that the work was permitted, the contractor supervisor hid his face to avoid being identified and refused to provide his name. 5 f. In addition to rejecting the proposed project, the City Council should investigate how it is possible for SCE to routinely work in RPV without appropriate permits. What is the cross-check procedure for RPV permits and SCE workorders? Who inside SCE authorized the June 24, 2020 work order to W.A. Rasic, one ofthe SCE contractors? If something as basic as the permitting process is routinely being ignored, what is else happening with safety inspections and other public safety processes? 4. Without a full knowledge of the factual background, which is still developing, the City Attorney seems to be giving advice as an advocate for the project rather than a balanced review of the law and the facts. a. The written advice from the City Attorney routinely ignores the entirety of the points the HOA has been making from the very beginning, and only addresses limited issues, which are not dispositive of the concerns raised. b. The City Attorney expressly ignores one of the HOA's most important points, which is that a homeowner-to-homeowner dispute should be decided in a policy making forum such as by the City Council, not in a ministerial forum such as Public Works. The City Attorney has assured the HOA that it will have the right to appeal any permit issued, and the HOA is relying on this representation c. The City Attorney written opinions do not address the details of easement law as applied to the current situation, which involves two separate easements between different parties. Instead, the opinions are conclusory assertions designed to support approval of the project. The HOA does not want to have to litigate the right-of-way/ easement issues. Litigation will be unnecessarily expensive for all parties. Upending the City's established approach to the public right of way could have extremely negative financial consequences for the community. d. The City Attorney proposes to grant the project favorable consideration of public utility status while simultaneously and knowingly ignoring SCE's failure to meet its own procedural requirements. This is apparent in both the City Attorney's easement and safety arguments. The CPUC makes it clear that as regards this project, SCE is acting solely as a private contractor for a private party. The CPUC will not be performing any oversight of Edison or verifying that SCE is following its own routine safety protocols. There will be no safety oversight. Consequently, SCE should not be accorded any presumptive rights to use the City's easement or right of way, because this IS NOT A PUBLIC PROJECT. e. The City Attorney, new to the position, may not be fully aware of the factual background of the previous 5 years regarding this project and the lack of transparency, repeated failures to observe City process and procedures and the failure to provide notice. This lack of knowledge is understandable given the deliberate attempts to avoid normal process and procedure. 6 For example, is it normal City procedure for the director of public works and the City manager to meet on site to review and approve plans, as Mr. Funiciello stated in his July 7 2020 appearance before the City Council, and there be no public record? 5. The CJPIA "safety review" is flawed and inadequate. a. It presumes a significant safety risk from the existing utility pole configuration, which has been in place for more than 36 years (to our personal knowledge) with no prior complaints or proposals from any party for reconfiguration to minimize risk. b. Undergrounding is not necessarily safer. SCE's own protocols were modified in 2010, at its own request, to reduce the emphasis on undergrounding. c. The CJPIA opinion merely examines the length of power line undergrounded, while ignoring the equipment and high voltage lines proposed to be relocated onto poles within the grove of highly flammable mature pine trees. The CPJIA analysis fails to mention or consider that there have been two transformer explosions in the area, the last one as recently as June 5, 2019. Focusing only on the length of line undergrounded is like assuming both ends of a gun are equally dangerous -it is not a reasoned viewpoint. d. The City cannot hide behind the CJPIA opinion to insulate it from liability. The CJPIA opinion assumes SCE has followed its own safety review procedures even though the CPUC letter and SCE's own representations make abundantly clear that SCE has not performed any independent safety analysis of the project. f. The default support for the CPJIA conclusion is that SCE will cut as many trees as necessary for safety, as explained in the SCE tree cutting brochure attached to its letter, which totally ignores the RPV Municipal Code policy regarding cutting of trees. g. When asking where the factual and technical input for the CJPIA opinion came from, we have not been able to get a complete answer. Representatives of Public Works and SCE have each told us that they did not provide any input. In his statement to the City Council, Mr. Funiciello said that he was the party that contacted the CPJIA at the City Attorney's direction, and that he met the CPJIA representative on site. This does not have the appearance of an adequate review process. 6. SCE confirms that 16kv wires are high voltage wires, and that the proposed project will locate such high voltage wires, circuitry and equipment into the grove of highly flammable mature pine trees at the entrance to HOA. a. Notwithstanding the hours spent to locate, highlight and provide information to City staff in real time, Public Works appears determined to issue the permit, without a proper independent safety analysis by qualified parties. The CPJIA analysis is not an adequate or appropriate substitute for the routine safety analysis performed by Edison. Edison engineering agrees that the proposed relocation project creates fire safety issues. 7 b. Edison itself, in a 2020 slide deck prepared for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, identifies the safety risks of 16kv high voltage transformers and lines. Edison is well aware of the fire safety dangers of locating high voltage equipment adjacent to trees, as confirmed by its litigation settlement with the City. c. It appears that Public Works has never explored alternative configurations that would remove or mitigate the safety threat to life and property of the existing residents as well as the residents of the City of Rolling Hills. d. The Staff Report should provide definitive costs or cost estimates for each of the options considered with respect to the project, including the cost of a complete undergrounding. Conclusion From the beginning of the 3867 pole relocation project, it appears that Public Works has never seriously considered the implications or public safety threat to lives and property of the HOA, neighboring residents or the residents of neighboring cities potentially impacted by the project. Apparently, Public Works has been misled into believing that it is required to issue the permit despite all of the irregularities that have occurred over the past 5 years, under the mistaken belief that preceding representations and actions which may have occurred without authority and outside of the law somehow become binding with the passage of time. The project has failed to follow normal City process and procedures, and has been stealthily pursued without the courtesy or legal requirement for public notice provided in the Federal and State Constitutions, statutes and local laws and ordinances. Edison itself expressly acknowledges that public projects even if they are within the right of way are subject to local regulation. Staff and the previous City Council have been placed on notice in real time of all the process and procedural irregularities that have been discovered throughout this process. We are confident that there is more material of which we are unaware. The encroachment permit should be denied, and the project should be permanently shut down as a consequence of the repeated egregious actions of both the Applicant and SCE, who continue to perform work without permits, in contravention of the City's regulatory authority and process. Very truly yours, Dale Spiegel spicgd a (/il gmail.com Kathy Campbell .k.QJll.@£ox.n.et Enclosures: Essential Documents and Photos 8 ,July 9, 2020 Via Email Mr. Ara M. Mihranian Mr. Elias Sassoon City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Rancho Palos Verdes Estates HOA Comments for 3867 Crest Road East Staff Report Consideration and Inclusion Dear Ara and Elias: We have prepared this document to ensure that important information is included in the Staff Report regarding the proposed relocation of utility poles on Crest Road. We respectfully request that these comments be addressed and reflected in the Staff Report. We also include an enclosure with selected documents that we consider important. Summary of Critical Points That Should be Addressed in the Staff Report 1. At the RPV City Council meeting on July 7, 2020 Mr. Funiciello confirmed that he has been working on this pole relocation project with the City, Southern California Edison ("SCE" or "Edison") and the other utilities for 5 years. We are disturbed that this complex closed door proceeding could go forward for such a length of time and yet generate no discoverable records (see response to Public Records Request dated August 20, 2019) and without affected neighboring property owners being notified or consulted in any fashion. 2. This project is a voluntary private cosmetic project initiated by the homeowner, in which SCE is acting purely as contractor. See CPUC letter dated March 3, 2020. It was not initiated to enhance SCE or other utility functionality or safety, and the history demonstrates that any such claim is an after-the-fact rationalization. 3. At least through November 5, 2019, Public Works may have been under the mistaken belief that SCE involvement meant there was a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN). See City Attorney Public Memo of that date, now corrected by the CPUC letter cited above. We are puzzled as to why Public Works did not request copies of applicable CPCNs if that was its belief, and also as to why the momentum apparently generated by that mistake seems to continue moving this project ahead. 4. We are troubled that the initial encroachment permit (dated May 6, 2019, since suspended) could be issued for a partial project ("bridge to nowhere") with no discoverable support for how it might be turned into a completed utility relocation project. s. We are supremely troubled that contractors working for SCE and/or the homeowner felt so confident that the City would look the other way that they TWICE began work without proper permits-the first time in June 2019, and the second time in June 2020 (the latter action being taken in the face of proposed City Council review of the project!). What is going on in the regulatory process that encourages this behavior? 6. We are shocked that partial and tacit encouragement was given to this project with no fire safety review. The only review was done in January 2020 and was a cursory review at best. See CJPIA letter dated March 17, 2020. 7· Approval ofthe project necessarily involved the cutting of several mature trees. This was done as a first step on a Sunday and without a permit. Again -in complete defiance of the City's regulations. 8. Finally, even if the City determines to favor one homeowner over 76 others in this unnecessary project, we disagree with the City's conclusion that it has the legal authority to permit this use of its right of way easement for this private purpose. Expanded Discussion We acknowledge that there have been changes in personnel in both the City staff and the City Council since the project was initiated. We respectfully wish to bring forward the history of the project and our issues with respect to the process to the attention of the City Council without disrespecting any individuals. From the time that chain saws on a Sunday morning first made us aware of the project, residents ofthe Rancho Palos Verdes Estates Community Association (the "HOA") have acted responsibly to bring this matter to City staff's attention in a timely and professional manner. In our dialog with the City over the last 13 months, we have been disappointed that our concerns and objections were met with rationalizations supporting the original project instead of any attempt to consider alternatives to mitigate those concerns. In sum, the response seems to be validation of the original "backdoor, under the radar" process favoring a single resident at the expense of 76 neighboring homeowners The City's costs in its ongoing efforts to justify the original project are being passed onto the remaining thousands of citizens ofthe City of Rancho Palos Verdes. We believe that the Staff Report should address both staff costs and external costs such as ongoing fees paid to the City Attorney in defending this private project. The known process irregularities enumerated below are numerous. Lack of transparency is an egregious issue. Requests made in the summer of 2019 for Records under the California Public Records Act were returned omitting significant relevant information that should have been in the files. Not until the City Attorney produced an Exhibit in May 2020, were we able to obtain formal evidence that this project has been underway for 5 years (as Mr. Funiciello has since confirmed in his statement to the City Council on July 7, 2020). This project has been allowed to persist for over 5 years, WITHOUT ANY NOTICE-or attempt at notice-to any of the affected residents, in express violation of the federal and state Constitution, state law and City ordinances. Beginning with the HOA's initial complaint in June 2019, when trees were wantonly destroyed during an unpermitted entry, until the most recent unpermitted construction 2 activity in the electrical vault on Crest Road adjacent our homes on June 24, 2020, the Applicant has ignored City authority and flagrantly defied the permitting process. But for the actions of concerned and engaged residents, this project might well have proceeded improperly to completion. This encroachment permit must be denied, and this project terminated. Known Process Irregularities and Misrepresentations from 2015-2020. 1. Secretive Process and Lack of Transparency. This encroachment permit process has been under discussion between Mr. Funiciello, SCE and RPV Public Works since at least 2015. Throughout this entire period, there was no notice to affected neighbors and all documentation appears to be secret (none was produced pursuant to several public records requests). The record clearly establishes this pattern of secrecy. a. It defies belief that a detailed engineering project of this complexity could have been processed without abundant documentation. It would be even more alarming if such a project were in fact processed without documentation. b. It is unimaginable that the May 2019 permit issued to Mr. Funiciello and Crown Castle could have been issued without tacit review of the entire project. The Crown Castle permit was a "bridge to nowhere" as it relocated 2 poles without addressing the remaining poles and 300 feet of electric lines. By breaking the project into smaller piecemeal projects, the full scope of the project was concealed. Further, the Crown Castle permit issued was incomplete and clearly supplemented after the fact. c. Edison and the City are required to discuss such a pole relocation with other affected utilities -cable and telephone for example. It is unimaginable that this project could have taken place without documentation and discussion. d. At the roundtable meeting on July 31, 2019 in which the HOA was finally briefed on the project, it was apparent that the various parties other than the HOA, its residents and other affected neighbors had been coordinating for a long time. Verbal representations were made that the project was undertaken for the purpose of installing a swimming pool in what appears to be a public right of way-yet, as far as we are aware, the City has not addressed any permit for such a swimming pool. 2. Failure to address the public safety issues. a. Other parties including SCE might be chargeable with ignoring public safety concerns, but we do not understand how Public Works could sign off on an electric pole relocation project knowing that no safety study had been performed by any party. Yet the May 2019 permit was issued. Not until January 2020 was any safety analysis done, and that was done by CJPIA on a cursory level and without input from the City. Even though the CJPIA deals with utilities and cities, Mr. Funiciello stated that he was the party who dealt with that organization at the direction of the City Attorney. It is no 3 surprise that a self-serving report resulted. To date, no thorough safety study has been done by a qualified independent party. b. The CJPIA safety report is patently focused on rationalizing the project. Both Public Works and the CJPIA rely on an "undergrounding is always safer" rationale. Any safety concerns stemming from the existing historic pole locations should have been addressed when 3867 Crest was approved for construction in 2003. By implication, there was no significant safety issue when the construction permit was issued. That the current homeowner purchased in 2013 confirms that no safety concern existed on his part. Thus, it is confounding that the CJPIA's study is premised on the finding that "[t]he residential property at 3867 Crest Road has an unusually heavy concentration of overhead power lines, which poses a risk to the residents." Beyond that, the CJPIA report concedes the HOA's point that there is fire safety risk in the current project design by placing 3 poles carrying 16kv high voltage into a grove of trees, yet is there no consideration of alternatives to mitigate that risk which is knowingly created by the design of the project. c. If partial undergrounding has any significant public benefit in this situation, some combination of SCE and the City should be funding it. They are not. The common law of utility pole relocations mandates that Edison pay the costs of ensuring the safety of its lines. The case law establishes that when the relocation is undertaken solely to benefit a private party, the private party pays. Mr. Funiciello's private beautification project cannot shift the burden from his property to other private property owners. d. The permitting process, designed to protect the citizenry and provide notice and public hearing, was deliberately subverted and ignored. e. The structure of the project, with SCE acting "merely as contractor" for Mr. Funiciello seems calculated to avoid SCE's own rules relative to undergrounding and pole relocation. The CPUC confirms that the project structure avoids CPUC and SCE protective procedures -relying on the City to protect the public interest. e. Public Works staff repeatedly stated "Edison gets what it wants" as the rationale for failing to examine anything beyond minor details of this project. The City Attorney's November 5, 2019 Public Memo restates the requirements of the Public Utilities Code and the necessity for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity if the project is viewed as SCE engaging in its business as a public utility. f. The CPUC letter dated March 3, 2020 expressly rejects that Edison is acting as a public utility on this project-thus, SCE is not entitled to any favorable presumptions accorded to a public utility g. Throughout this process, safety review discussions end with an "SCE will cut any trees creating danger" rationale. This is echoed in the CJPIA analysis. In other words, granting a permit for this project is the functional equivalent of granting a permit 4 to cut trees in pursuit of a private project. This is contrary to RPV's regulatory scheme articulated, for example, in RPV Municipal Code 12.o8.oso. 3· Apparently, Mr. Funiciello and his contractor expected that the City would look the other way. a. The Crown Castle "bridge to nowhere" permit (May 2019) and costs incurred under it were money wasted if the larger permit were not granted. No responsible owner or contractor would risk incurring the costs of breaking ground without high confidence that the project could be completed. b. The work performed by the contractor was not consistent with the permit it purported to be operating under. Obviously, there were complete plans in existence for the contractor to follow -which is why the work actually performed bore no resemblance to the defective Crown Castle permit. c. The contractor began work on a Sunday morning, absolutely contrary to RPV rules. This cannot be put down as a simple mistake. Combined with the fact of acting without a permit, there was a calculated expectation that RPV would not enforce its rules because City officials would not be working on a Sunday morning. This expectation was validated by the fact that the City, after being placed on notice on the next business day, Monday June 24, 2019 allowed the contractor to continue to work for several more days to complete conduit installation and other work instead of requiring the contractor to immediately stop work and restore the road surface. Furthermore, on June 28, well after the stop work order was issued and in effect, the contractor cut through the cable providing phone and internet service to Marymount College and the neighboring community. This is further evidence that the contractor believed there would be no City oversight to ensure that the contractor was acting in a safe manner and within the scope of the permit. d. SCE continues to ignore permitting requirements. Not part of the Funiciello project, but very on point to many of the BOA's concerns-on Saturday, December 7, 2019, Edison showed up in the vicinity ofthe Crest Road site with 6 trucks to perform a utility pole project despite the fact that its request for that permit had been expressly turned down by Public Works the day before. Vigilant residents voiced their concerns to the crew, which then tried to present several EXPIRED permits before ultimately packing up and going away. e. Furthermore, on June 24, 2020, SCE contractors once again, together with Mr. Funiciello, began working on the 3867 project without a permit. The work involved several vehicles and an extensive crew, who removed steel plates in the street and entered the electrical vault. When questioned on site, after representing that the work was permitted, the contractor supervisor hid his face to avoid being identified and refused to provide his name. 5 f. In addition to rejecting the proposed project, the City Council should investigate how it is possible for SCE to routinely work in RPV without appropriate permits. What is the cross-check procedure for RPV permits and SCE workorders? Who inside SCE authorized the June 24, 2020 work order to W.A. Rasic, one of the SCE contractors? If something as basic as the permitting process is routinely being ignored, what is else happening with safety inspections and other public safety processes? 4. Without a full knowledge of the factual background, which is still developing, the City Attorney seems to be giving advice as an advocate for the project rather than a balanced review of the law and the facts. a. The written advice from the City Attorney routinely ignores the entirety of the points the HOA has been making from the very beginning, and only addresses limited issues, which are not dispositive of the concerns raised. b. The City Attorney expressly ignores one of the HOA's most important points, which is that a homeowner-to-homeowner dispute should be decided in a policy making forum such as by the City Council, not in a ministerial forum such as Public Works. The City Attorney has assured the HOA that it will have the right to appeal any permit issued, and the HOA is relying on this representation c. The City Attorney written opinions do not address the details of easement law as applied to the current situation, which involves two separate easements between different parties. Instead, the opinions are conclusory assertions designed to support approval of the project. The HOA does not want to have to litigate the right-of-way j easement issues. Litigation will be unnecessarily expensive for all parties. Upending the City's established approach to the public right of way could have extremely negative financial consequences for the community. d. The City Attorney proposes to grant the project favorable consideration of public utility status while simultaneously and knowingly ignoring SCE's failure to meet its own procedural requirements. This is apparent in both the City Attorney's easement and safety arguments. The CPUC makes it clear that as regards this project, SCE is acting solely as a private contractor for a private party. The CPUC will not be performing any oversight of Edison or verifying that SCE is following its own routine safety protocols. There will be no safety oversight. Consequently, SCE should not be accorded any presumptive rights to use the City's easement or right of way, because this IS NOT A PUBLIC PROJECT. e. The City Attorney, new to the position, may not be fully aware of the factual background of the previous 5 years regarding this project and the lack of transparency, repeated failures to observe City process and procedures and the failure to provide notice. This lack of knowledge is understandable given the deliberate attempts to avoid normal process and procedure. 6 For example, is it normal City procedure for the director of public works and the City manager to meet on site to review and approve plans, as Mr. Funiciello stated in his July 7 2020 appearance before the City Council, and there be no public record? s. The CJPIA "safety review" is flawed and inadequate. a. It presumes a significant safety risk from the existing utility pole configuration, which has been in place for more than 36 years (to our personal knowledge) with no prior complaints or proposals from any party for reconfiguration to minimize risk b. Undergrounding is not necessarily safer. SCE's own protocols were modified in 2010, at its own request, to reduce the emphasis on undergrounding. c. The CJPIA opinion merely examines the length of power line undergrounded, while ignoring the equipment and high voltage lines proposed to be relocated onto poles within the grove of highly flammable mature pine trees. The CPJIA analysis fails to mention or consider that there have been two transformer explosions in the area, the last one as recently as June 5, 2019. Focusing only on the length of line undergrounded is like assuming both ends of a gun are equally dangerous -it is not a reasoned viewpoint. d. The City cannot hide behind the CJPIA opinion to insulate it from liability. The CJPIA opinion assumes SCE has followed its own safety review procedures even though the CPUC letter and SCE's own representations make abundantly clear that SCE has not performed any independent safety analysis of the project. f. The default support for the CPJIA conclusion is that SCE will cut as many trees as necessary for safety, as explained in the SCE tree cutting brochure attached to its letter, which totally ignores the RPV Municipal Code policy regarding cutting of trees. g. When asking where the factual and technical input for the CJPIA opinion came from, we have not been able to get a complete answer. Representatives of Public Works and SCE have each told us that they did not provide any input. In his statement to the City Council, Mr. Funiciello said that he was the party that contacted the CPJIA at the City Attorney's direction, and that he met the CPJIA representative on site. This does not have the appearance of an adequate review process. 6. SCE confirms that 16kv wires are high voltage wires, and that the proposed project will locate such high voltage wires, circuitry and equipment into the grove of highly flammable mature pine trees at the entrance to HOA. a. Notwithstanding the hours spent to locate, highlight and provide information to City staff in real time, Public Works appears determined to issue the permit, without a proper independent safety analysis by qualified parties. The CPJIA analysis is not an adequate or appropriate substitute for the routine safety analysis performed by Edison. Edison engineering agrees that the proposed relocation project creates fire safety issues. 7 b. Edison itself, in a 2020 slide deck prepared for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, identifies the safety risks of 16kv high voltage transformers and lines. Edison is well aware of the fire safety dangers of locating high voltage equipment adjacent to trees, as confirmed by its litigation settlement with the City. c. It appears that Public Works has never explored alternative configurations that would remove or mitigate the safety threat to life and property of the existing residents as well as the residents of the City of Rolling Hills. d. The Staff Report should provide definitive costs or cost estimates for each of the options considered with respect to the project, including the cost of a complete undergrounding. Conclusion From the beginning of the 3867 pole relocation project, it appears that Public Works has never seriously considered the implications or public safety threat to lives and property of the HOA, neighboring residents or the residents of neighboring cities potentially impacted by the project. Apparently, Public Works has been misled into believing that it is required to issue the permit despite all of the irregularities that have occurred over the past 5 years, under the mistaken belief that preceding representations and actions which may have occurred without authority and outside of the law somehow become binding with the passage of time. The project has failed to follow normal City process and procedures, and has been stealthily pursued without the courtesy or legal requirement for public notice provided in the Federal and State Constitutions, statutes and local laws and ordinances. Edison itself expressly acknowledges that public projects even if they are within the right of way are subject to local regulation. Staff and the previous City Council have been placed on notice in real time of all the process and procedural irregularities that have been discovered throughout this process. We are confident that there is more material of which we are unaware. The encroachment permit should be denied, and the project should be permanently shut down as a consequence of the repeated egregious actions of both the Applicant and SCE, who continue to perform work without permits, in contravention of the City's regulatory authority and process. Very truly yours, Dale Spiegel §11i e gd a (a! g1 nail. co In Kathy Campbell Enclosures: Essential Documents and Photos 8 ESSENTIAL DOCUMENTS FOR INCLUSION IN STAFF REPORT ON 3867 CREST POLE RELOCATION PROJECT We, the homeowners in Rancho Palos Verdes Estates, believe that the following documents are essential for a proper Staff Report on this project. 1. Letter of March 3, 2020 from Mary Appiah ofthe California Public Utilities Commission to Dale Spiegel confirming that the pole relocation project is a private homeowner project in which Southern California Edison is acting solely as a contractor, and that the project does not fall within the utility regulatory framework. The CPUC, Edison and the City unanimously agree that this is a private project. 2. City Attorney Public Memo of November 5, 2019 advising that utility project process requires a review under CPUC Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity standards. The Memo erroneously states that the homeowner had complied with this process. This Memo also advises that encroachment permits are eligible for appeal, after they are issued. The HOA has been repeatedly assured of its right to appeal. 3. Suspended Encroachment Permit ENC2019-0098 dated May 6, 2019 for the placement of 2 utility poles on the south side of Crest Road East. This is the "bridge to nowhere" permit that makes no sense without the tacit understanding that the rest of the project would be permitted. Notwithstanding that no applicable permit was issued, the contractor was allowed to trench the road, install vaults and conduit, and perform other work for several days after the City obtained actual knowledge that work was going on outside the scope of this permit. The permit makes no mention of that work or the cutting of trees that took place on Sunday June 23,2019. 4. City Attorney letter of June 1, 2020 and attachments correcting the earlier letter of May 29, 2020, as to the fact that a permit application for the entire project had been in the hands of Public Works since October 2019. When comparing the scope of work in the attachments to the June 1, 2020 letter to the "permit to nowhere" originally approved in May 2019, it is difficult to understand how the original May permit could have been issued, unless it was part of a larger, undisclosed plan. s. Letter ofMelaina Francis to Elias Sassoon dated March 17,2020 on behalf of the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority reaching certain safety conclusions related to the project. This is the first record of any formal consideration of fire safety issues raised by this project. It is a cursory review at best, and relies on unlimited cutting of trees to resolve any safety issues. It ignores the placement of high voltage wires and equipment onto poles aboveground. 6. Text, email and other correspondence between residents of the HOA and the City, including City Counsel beginning in June 2019 through and including July 2020. Photos Crew performing work in the vault without a permit and hiding their faces-June 24, 2020 Equipment on power lines proposed to be relocated onto poles in grove of mature pine trees 2 Teresa Takaoka From: Octavia Silva Sent: To: Cc: Thursday, July 16, 2020 1:28 PM Nathan Zweizig; Lukasz Buchwald 'Lum Fobi'; CityCierk; Ken Rukavina Subject: RE: CPRA Request from Californians for Homeownership Hi Nathan, We are going to need more time to prepare the information related to this PRA request. Can't we ask for an extension of 10 additional days? Octavia Silva Interim Deputy Director of Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Y)L\1\{W .rpvca. g ov QJ;j§lvios@mvca.gov (31 0) 544-5234 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: Nathan Zweizig <NathanZ@rpvca.gov> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 7:51AM To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Lukasz Buchwald <lbuchwald@rpvca.gov> Cc: 'Lum Fobi' <lfobi@awattorneys.com>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: CPRA Request from Californians for Homeownership Octavio/Lukasz, Attached is a PRA regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's). The requestor is requesting the following, all documents and communications (including email, social media, texts, etc) for: 1) Documents related to California's ADU laws; 2) ADU guidance documents; 3) Application records for ADU's. Each part of the request goes into greater detail. Octavia, can you provide Lukasz with proper search terms for his email search for each request? Lum, do you believe we should have these documents reviewed prior to production to the requestor? Please note that we would need to respond by Monday, July 20, 2020. Thanks, 1 Nathan Nathan B. Zweizig, Administrative Assistant City Clerk's Office City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5217 Please consider the environment before printing this e-maiL City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: Matthew Gelfand [mailto:admin@caforhomes.org] On Behalf Of matt@caforhomes.org Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 10:22 PM To: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov> Subject: CPRA Request from Californians for Homeownership To the City Clerk's Office: Please see the attached CPRA request. Sincerely, Matthew Gelfand matt(wcaforhornes.org 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hi Dale: Elias Sassoon Thursday, July 16, 2020 2:16 PM Dale Spiegel; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Ken Dyda; David Bradley; Barbara Ferraro; Ara Mihranian; William Wynder Kathy Campbell; CityCierk; CC ; Ron Dragoo; Tina Funiciello RE: Rancho Palos Verdes Estates HOA Request for 3867 Crest Road Staff Report Consideration and Inclusion Here's the attachment ; 3867 Crest Road Thanks for your call this morning. You were correct. The app li cants had not attached a copy of the emai l from Michael Thorne (Public Works Director then ) dated April 6, 2016 to the correspondence which was sent to the City Council on July 13, 2020 (copy attached). I reac hed out to the applicants and I just received a cop y of this missing email from them which I have attached to this emai l. Please let me know if you have an y further questions or concerns . Regards, Elias K. Sassoon, Director Department of Public Works ~ity of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Cit y Hall is open to the public during regula r business hours. To help prevent the spread of CO VID -19, visitors are requ ired to wear face cover in gs and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some emp loyees are working on rotation and may be working remote ly. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during you r v is it. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time . Please note that our response to your inqu iry could be delayed. For a li st of department phone numbers, vi sit the Staff Directory on the City w ebsite. From: Elias Sassoon Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 3:59 PM To: 'Dale Spiegel' <spiegda@gmail.com>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov>; William Wynder <wwynder@awattorneys.com> Cc: Kathy Campbell <kc111@cox.net>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo 1 <RonD@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Rancho Palos Verdes Estates HOA Request for 3867 Crest Road Staff Report Consideration and Inclusion Hi Dale: Thanks for reaching out to us. Your email will be included in the late correspondence regarding this agenda item. I received 4 emails from you on July 9111 and each email contained two to four attachments. I inadvertently missed one the attachments and I hereby do apologize for missing this attachment. Attached, please find a copy of the email and the attachments which were received from the applicants of the permit. As you can see there were 3 attachments to the applicant email. The email and one of the attachments is the "Attachment 0" of the Staff Report. The other attachment is the same as "Attachment J" of the Staff Report. The last attachment is a video which could not be added to the Staff Report. I have created a link for this video which is: httgs://rpv4.sha regoint.com/:v:/g/EatnZQRTbLRAo8XQObti<RY ABnOa B jTGAA-TdSOnJ I BjUg hope this has clarified the situation and please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. 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 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: Dale Spiegel <spiegda@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 11:35 AM To: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; l<en Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; William Wynder <wwynder@awattorneys.com> Cc: Kathy Campbell <kclll@cox.net> Subject: Fwd: Rancho Palos Verdes Estates HOA Request for 3867 Crest Road Staff Report Consideration and Inclusion Dear City Council Members - 2 As homeowners in Rancho Palos Verdes Estates opposed to the Funiciello pole relocation project, we have a number of objections to the incomplete and misleading Staff Report released last night in preparation for the July 21 hearing. We are particularly outraged by the Staff Report omitting our email and letter of July 9, copied and attached below, while including the Funiciello letter of July 13. Our July 9 correspondence is important to a complete record because it addresses critical new information not made available to us until the July 7 City Council Meeting. Moreover, in the interests of completeness and transparency, we do not understand why the Staff Report omits the attachments referenced in the July 13 letter from the Funiciellos. Open disclosure ofthe complete history of this project has been one of our chief requests and lack of it is one of the chief failings of the process. Lastly for today, we request the right to be present and participate in any de facto City Council Meeting convened pursuant to the request in the Funciello letter of July 13. Thank you, and best regards. Dale Spiegel spiegda@gmail.com Kathy Campbell kc 111 @cox.net ----------Forwarded message --------- From: Dale Spiegel <spiegda@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 12:31 PM Subject: Rancho Palos Verdes Estates HOA Request for 3867 Crest Road StaffReport Consideration and Inclusion To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>, Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Cc: Kathy Campbell <kc111@cox.net> Ara and Elias - On behalf of ourselves and the HOA, here are comments and a document list for the Staff Report to the hearing on 3867 Crest project, calendared for hearing at the July 21, 2020 City Council Meeting. We would appreciate these being reflected in that Report. If there are any questions or concerns, please let us know. If we should send these items to anyone else, please let us know. We assume that otherwise you will get them to the necessary parties. Many thanks for that. For convenience, as attachments to separate emails, I will send copies of most of the items on the Essential Documents list. I apologize for the inconvenience. Best regards Dale Spiegel 3 From: Sent: To: Tina Funiciello <tngfuni@aol.com> Thursday, July 16, 2020 2:01 PM Elias Sassoon Subject: Here's the attachment My apologies that this was not attached to the previous email. Regards, Tina Funiciello Begin forwarded message: > »On Apr 6, 2016, at 11:43 AM, Michael Throne <MichaeiT@rpvca.gov> wrote: >> » Hi, Ms Funiciello. >> »Thank you for your message. Public Works has reviewed your message and photographs and on first review would be amenable to the proposed utility relocation. The typical process would be for Edison to submit plans and after review, if approved, the City would issue an encroachment permit to them so that the work could be accomplished. Edison would be charged permit and inspection fees. >> » If you could, please send us the contact information for the Edison representative you've been working with so that we can make sure they know what to do. >> >>Regards, >> » Michael Throne, PE, PWLF » Director of Public Works »City of Rancho Palos Verdes » 30940 Hawthorne Blvd » Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275 » 310 544-5252 >> >> >> »-----Original Message----- » From: Tina Funiciello [mailto:tngfuni@aol.com] »Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 11:15 AM »To: Michael Throne <MichaeiT@rpvca.gov> »Subject: 3867 crest road >> »Good morning Mr. Throne, >> »We were directed to email you by Councilman Jerry Duhovic. The purpose of our correspondence is to request your approval for the relocation of the utility poles presently on our property to a designated location across the street, a vacant hillside. >> 1 » Please refer to the photo I have attached below. These locations have been designated by Edison after drafting a comprehensive design for the relocation. The next step in moving forward with our project is to obtain the necessary city approval. >> » Please let me know what steps we need to take to assist you with this process. »Thank you very much! »Giovanni and Tina Funiciello » {310) 547-3318 » 3867 Crest Road »Rancho Palos Verdes >> 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Ms. Attenel lo: Thanks for reaching out to us. Elias Sassoon Sunday, July 19, 2020 8:43 PM bma2252@gmail.com CC; CityC ierk; CityManager; William Wynder FW: "WE OPPOSE THE PROPOSED 3867 UTILITY POLE RELOCATION PROJECT ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR THE JULY 21 CITY COUNCIL MEETING'"' Your ema i l wil l be included in the late correspondence regarding this item . Regards, El ias K. Sassoon, Director Department of Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd . Rancho Pa l os Verdes, CA 90275 Te l : 310-544-5335 Fax: 310-544-5292 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time . Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: Betty A <bma2252 @ gmail.com> Date: July 19 ,2020 at 6:51:26 PM PDT To: CC <CC @rpvca.gov> Subject: "WE OPPOSE THE PROPOSED 3867 UTILITY POLE RELOCATION PROJECT ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR THE JULY 21 CITY COUNCIL MEETING'''' Dear members of the RPV CITY COUNCIL, I'm writing to you as a concern homeowner that lives in the gated community ofRPV Estates. I want it known that I strongly "OPPOSE" the relocation of the 3867 Crest utility poles and high voltage equipment into the grove of trees on th e South side of Crest. 1 My brother Frank J. Attenello is also a resident in this community and agrees with me on opposing the utility pole relocation project. Mr. Funiciello purchased this property at 3867 Crest Road in 2013, with full knowledge ofthe placement of the utility poles. Interesting, that two years after he purchased the property he initiated this pole relocation, behind "CLOSED DOORS"! Mr. Funiciello confirmed he had been working on this project five years prior. The five years this has been going on, there has not been any public records or notification of the project to the neighboring community. The information I have gathered on this situation, with the non transparency ofthe activities and the blatant disregard for the state and cities rules and regulations, has me questioning Mr. Funiciello's integrity! The biggest concern I have is the safety issues not only for my community, but the surrounding communities as well. Fire danger is an imminent threat to our communities and this project if approved would increase our risk to catastrophic proportions. I have faith in the members of the RPV CITY COUNCIL to make the best decision, for the entire community ofRPV. Thank you for your time and efforts in this matter. BETTY A TTENELLO 8 AVENIDA DE CAMELIA, RPV, CA. 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: AI Duenas <al_duenas@cox.net > Sunday, Jul y 19, 2020 6:03 PM Elias Sassoon William Wynder; CC ; CityCierk; CityManager Subject: Re: Proposed 3867 Utility Pole Relocation Project Thank you, I appreciate. AI Sent from my iPhone On Jul19, 2020, at 5:36P M , Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi : Thanks for reaching out to us. Your email will be in included in the late correspondent for this item . 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 <imageOO 1. png> City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID - 19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines . Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website . Begin forwarded message: From: "al duenas@cox.net " <al duenas@cox.net > Date: July 19, 2020 at 2:09:36 PM PDT To: CC <CC@rpvca .gov> Subject: Proposed 3867 Utility Pole Relocation Project Dear Members of the City Council: We are residents of Rancho Palos Verdes Estates and we are opposed to the relocation of the 3867 Crest utility poles and high voltage equipment into the grove of trees on the South side of Crest. My spouse, I and our children have been Rancho Palos Verdes residents for 23 years and we strongly object to the proposed relocation. Our community was built without any overhead power cables and to do this relocation will distract from the beauty of our community and would have an adverse effect on our property values. We do not want the visual blight or fire danger relocated onto our property. We are outraged to learn of the City's participation in this process. Decisions regarding our property should not be made without our knowledge. The utility poles have been in place for over 40 years. A straightforward and cost-effective compromise would be to require that all lines be placed underground. The current plan already calls for 270 out of 300 feet to be placed underground. We respectfully request that the permit should only be granted if the remaining 30 feet and associated high voltage equipment are undergrounded. Respectfully, Alberto and Brenda Duenas 4 Paseo de Pino Rancho Palos Verdes 2 ------ From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Mr. & Ms. Sedlachek : Thanks for reaching out to us . Eli as Sassoo n Sunday, July 19 , 2020 5:24 PM sedlac hek@aol.com CC; CityC ierk; CityManager FW: Oppostion to relocation of 3867 Crest Uti l ity po les relocatiion project Your email will be included in the late correspondent for this item . Regards, Elias K. Sa ssoon , Director Department of Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd . Rancho Palo s Verdes, CA 90275 Tel : 310-544-5335 Fax: 310-544-529 2 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines . Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit . Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: sed lachek <sedlachek@aol.com> Date: July 19 , 2020 at 12:27:56 PM PDT To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov > Subject: Oppostion to relocation of 3867 Crest Utility poles relocatiion project Dear Counci l members- We have been residents of RPV Estates for 20 years and are opposed to the relocation of the 3867 Crest utility poles and high voltage equipment into the grove of trees on the South side of Crest. 2. We have enjoyed this grove of tress that have been established for 40 years and to have them removed is unconscionable, If the poles were relocated it would be a safety and fire hazard. Mr. Funiciello purchased his property with full knowledge of the utility poles. 3867 Crest Rd. was built with utilities poles and Mr. Funiciello purchased this home well aware, and we are sure with a purchase price consideration, of the utility poles. We were appalled to learn of the City's participation in this process without our knowledge, for years you have dealt with Mr Funiciello without our associations knowledge We only became aware when work began on a Sunday without permits. We feel the best solution is to require that all lines be placed underground at the expense of Mr. Funiciello or deny his request for relocation. Thank you for considering ours and our communities concerns regarding this matter. Michael and Deborah Sedlachek 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mr. Frank Attenello: Thanks for reaching to us. Elias Sassoon Sunday, July 19, 2020 5:31 PM attenello@gmail.com CC; CityCierk; William Wynder; CityManager FW: "We Oppose the Proposed 3867 Utility Pole Relocation Project on the Regular Agenda for the July 21 City Council Meeting." Your email will be included in the late correspondent for this item. 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 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines . Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit . Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website . From: Frank A <attenello@gmail.com> Date: July 19 , 2020 at 11:37:06 AM PDT To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: "We Oppose the Proposed 3867 Utility Pole Relocation Project on the Regular Agenda for the July 21 City Council Meeting." My name is Frank Joseph Attene llo , Jr., I live in the gated community of RPV Estates. I have lived at this address for 28 years. My spouse and I are strongly opposed to the relocation of the 3867 Crest utility poles and high voltage equipment into the grove of trees on the South side of Crest. My sister, Betty Attenello , also is a resident in this gated community and sh e is strongly opposed to the relocation ofthe utility poles and high voltage equipment. The city utilities in question have been in their current location for over 40 years and Mr. Funiciello purchased his property with full knowledge ofthe utility poles. Now he seeks to increase the resale value of his property by shifting this danger and blight to his neighbors across the street on Crest. By permitting this relocation under these circumstances, the City is encouraging and enabling anarchy and disrespect for the rule of law. A straightforward and cost- effective compromise would be to require that all lines be placed underground. The current plan calls for 270 out of 300 feet to be placed underground. The permit should only be granted if the remaining 30 feet and associated high voltage equipment are placed underground. All work should be paid for by Mr. Funiciello. I appreciate the City Council's efforts to take the interests of our communities 76 residents into account when making their decision on this matter. Frank Attenello Jr. 8 Ave. De Azalea, RPV, CA. 2