The URL can be used to link to this page

20200901 Late CorrespondenceFrom: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Mr. Melling, Katie Lozano Tuesday, September 1, 2020 5:11 PM Daniel Melling CC; CityCierk RE: FW: Reverse the "no parking" restrictions on Crenshaw Blvd. near Portuguese Bend Reserve Thank you for your response. Here are some answers and information to some of your questions/comments. On August 181h the City Council specifically placed a 60-day time limit on the temporary parking prohibition on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd. to ensure the parking elimination would not become permanent. While it is possible that at the end of the 60 days the City Council is not satisfied with the detailed proposals staff presents, or they may choose to provide alternative direction to staff. However, the City Council made it clear that a time limit would be placed on the parking moratorium to emphasize its temporary nature and to prioritize a solution to restore manageable and responsible parking to the area. During this temporary parking restriction, visitors (residents or nonresidents) are encouraged to visit some of the other 10 Reserves. Alta Vicente Reserve and Ocean Trails Reserve are excellent choices with adequate parking near trailheads and public amenities, such as restrooms and picnic tables. Both Reserves also provide direct access to the California Coastal Trail and the City's coast and beaches. As part of the August 18th staff report, staff did recommend thorough public outreach if the City Council chose to permanently red curb all of Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd., which was the local HOAs' preferred action. However, the action City Council took was a temporary parking prohibition. The City Council also expressed its lack of interest in permanently prohibiting parking in this area. I suggest you re-watch the video of the meeting to hear the words spoken by certain Councilmembers in this regard. When staff sends notifications to the public of upcoming agenda items, our typical practice is to summarize the item, and provide a direct link to the agenda/staff report for the public to read, as our staff reports can be quite lengthy and detailed. This is why not all of the specifics of the staff report were included in listserv messages sent out. The City has received grant funding from a variety of federal, state, county, and local sources. Below is language which is part of the one of the LA County deed restrictions associated with the grant pertaining to equitable access: "Any beach, park or other public facility acquired, developed, rehabilitated or restored with funds derived under this resolution shall be open and accessible to the public without discrimination as to race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious belief, national origin, marital status, physical or medical handicap, medical condition, or place of residence ... The recipient shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any person or organization seeking to use such facility based upon the place of residence of such person or member of such organization." I hope this is helpful. Thank you, Katie Lozano Senior Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5267 katiel@rpvca .gov 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: Daniel Melling <dmelling@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 3:31PM To: Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re : FW: Reverse the "no parking" restrictions on Crenshaw Blvd. near Portuguese Bend Reserve Dear Katie Lozano , Thank you for your detailed response. If it didn't come tlu·ough enough in the blog post , I wanted to recognize both the immediate steps you have taken to relieve traffic impacts , through your online engagement and other measures , as we ll as the comprehensive, detailed, and sensible set of long-term solutions that you have proposed. I li stened to th e detailed presentation and comments by yo u and Cory Linder at the Aug . 18 meeting and read the city's extensive report on various parking options. I a lso recognize the significant challenge you face in balancing the interests of multiple stakeholders with fierce views on the right path forward. A few responses to specific points in your email: On the NCCP /HUP: I'm grateful for this additional context and history. I read the NCCP in preparation for this post (and the PUMP) and in a prior draft , I had included a line about wi ldlife conservation as the primary use for this land with a link to these documents . You are right to notice the absence ofthis point from my post. As you mention , eco lo gical impact from passive use would justify restricting access to the preserve , but increased visitation amid the COVID-19 pandemic has not led to observed damage. On the temporary nature of the parking restrictions: On Aug. 18 , I did not hear a specific call to remove the "no parking" signs and red curb painting at the end of the 60 day period. Is the city committed to removing the parking restrictions in November? What I heard on Aug . 18 was that counci lm embers would lik ely vote to extend the restrictions for another two-month period, since another long-term solution would not have been implemented by then. The agenda item for today's meeting states , "If viab le parking so luti ons are sti ll incomplete, staff will bring this temporary no parking item back to the City Council at its November 4 , 2020 meeting to consider its options including a time extension for the temporary no parking area." On the traffic situation: Your information on the history of neighborhood complaints and the city's response is helpful. I included some of these issues in my blog post, but not in as much detail as you provide. It's an important point that the city's lon g-term vis ion for reserve access was not for Burma Rd. to be the primary trailhead. On equitab le access: As mentioned in my post , parking restrictions in wealthy areas are a common means for communities in California to restrict access to open spaces , not just on the coast, and have attracted 2 considerable attention from media, activists, and state officials. Having visited the new public parking area on Crenshaw Blvd. yesterday, I am convinced that the parking on Crenshaw Blvd. north of Crest Rd. is unsafe and at a distance from the trailhead that would deter nonresident hikers, especially families, the elderly, and those with mobility issues, from parking and accessing the reserve. As the city has reported, 95% of visitors on weekends and holidays are nonresidents, often from nearby cities with far greater proportions of Black and Latino residents who have historically been excluded from homeownership on the Palos Verdes peninsula by racial covenants, and today make up on 11% of RPV's population. Parking restrictions that reduce access will have a disproportionate effect on visitors from low-income communities of color who use the Portuguese Bend Reserve to gain fresh air, nature, and open space that does not exist in their neighborhoods. As you mention, the majority of funding for the purchase of the reserve focused on wildlife conservation and not public access - were there funding sources such as county, state, or private grants that do require considerations of equitable access? On coastal jurisdiction: Thank you for this clarification on the Coastal Zone. On public notice: Thank you for the further information about your additional public notices. As a nonresident, I am not on either of the listservs nor do I closely follow the public agenda of RPV meetings, so it's useful to hear about these communications. In pati, I wrote this post because many trail users, including myself and at least one PVPLC board member, were taken by surprise by the proposed parking restrictions. The city's report on parking options notes if the city chose to paint curbs red along Crenshaw Blvd., "extensive public outreach before implementation" would be needed. Is it fair to say that has occurred? Most of the notices you reference are for agenda items to discuss general neighborhood mitigation measures, not a specific proposal to restrict parking along Crenshaw Blvd. I looked back on the agenda item for the Aug. 18 city council meeting that you reference. Here is the text: Consideration and possible action to implement measures mitigating impacts to residential neighborhoods adjacent to Del Cerro Park and Portuguese Bend Reserve. (Trautner/Lozano) (60 mins) Recommendation: (1) Review and provide input on the short-term solutions implemented by Staff;(2) Direct Staff to pursue the following long-term solutions:a. Establish a parking reservation program on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road; and b. Establish a trailhead with parking at the toe of the Portuguese Bend Reserve (formerly known as Gateway Park); and, (3) Review and provide direction on alternative long-term solutions. This Aug. 18 agenda item includes no specific reference to painting curbs red and "no parking" signs, rather "measures mitigating impacts to residential neighborhoods," including the long-proposed permit system and Gateway Park concept that you had recommended as a parking solution and have public support. Red curbs might fold under "alternative long-term solutions," but I think we can both agree that doesn't count as public notice for discussion of the parking restrictions the council adopted. When was the city's first public notice specifically about the city's motion about painting red curbs and installing "no parking" signs on Crenshaw Blvd., besides the public decision on Aug. 18? I saw the Tweet and Facebook post from Aug. 27, but if the city provided any public notice before then (maybe the Aug. 26 listerv email?), please let me know. From my visit to the trailhead and Crenshaw Blvd. yesterday, I also noted that the two large banners on the fence and at the trailhead gate did not indicate this parking restriction would be "temporary" (it's possible the 3 electronic boards at Crenshaw Blvd. did say "temporary" or specify the time period, but I regret I did not record the full text across 3 flashing messages). Thank you again for reading my blog post and for responding in such detail. I want to be clear that I come from a place of respect for the work that you, Cory Linder, and so many others have undertaken both to preserve access to the reserve, identify long-term parking solutions, and guarantee public safety, all in coordination with a wide group of constituents who care passionately about the reserve and their communities. Daniel On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:16 PM Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hello Mr. Melling, Thank you for your email. City Staff has read your email, as well as your post on Legal-Planet, and there are some inaccuracies that warrant clarifying. The City would like to take the opportunity to provide more information on the actions the City Council took on August 18, 2020 and to provide some context. The 41 0-acre Portuguese Bend Reserve is one of twelve Nature Reserve properties that form the 1 ,400-acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve (Preserve) in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The City acquired the majority of the Preserve to enroll in the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) which is part of a permit the City receives from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (the Wildlife Agencies) to provide for the regional protection of plants and animals and their habitats, while at the same time allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity. Per our NCCP/HCP, the primary purpose of the Preserve is preservation of our four listed animal species (some of which are federally endangered), and their habitats. Public access is not a requirement of our Preserve per the NCCP/HCP. However, due to unanimous public support, the City took action to make public access in the form of passive recreation a covered activity under our NCCP/HCP. This means that public access to the Preserve is permissible as long as it does not have a detrimental impact on the protected species and habitat within the Preserve. The City has worked hard and passionately with the Wildlife Agencies, the City's Habitat Manager (the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy) and the community to balance natural resource protection with public access to keep this amazing open space area open to the public, and we have successfully done so for the past twenty years. Moreover, the City manages all 1,400 acres of open space, not the County, PVPLC, or other state and federal agencies. The PVPLC manages the habitat for the City. Some efforts the City, has taken to invite and educate the public on the Preserve include public day hikes, public night hikes, a Jr. Ranger Program, and school tours. Of course, these offerings are largely on hold right now due to Los Angeles County Health orders related to Covid-19. The action the City Council took on August 18, 2020 was very specific to temporarily prohibiting parking for 60-days on a stretch of road (Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd.) that has been problematic over the past ten years, while staff brings a solution forth to restore parking in a safer, responsible, and manageable way to this area with minimal impacts to surrounding properties. This stretch of road has been problematic, because it serves as the parking and access area to the City's most popular Reserve (the Portuguese Bend Reserve) as well as the Filiorum Reserve and Del 4 Cerro Park. This stretch of road sees more than 240,000 visitors annually, and as a parking and staging area, was never designed to handle this level of use nor was this envisioned at the time the Preserve was being created. Traffic impacts on this stretch of road are exacerbated because it dead ends in a residential neighborhood with no designated U-turn mechanism. Use has increased substantially over the past 10 years, largely due to social media, and more recently, increases in trail use experienced throughout LA County since LA County Health Department trail closures were relaxed in May. In light of the Council's motion, public parking remains available for the Portuguese Bend and Filiorum Reserves on Crenshaw Blvd. north of Crest Rd., and at the other 10 Reserve properties throughout the City, many of which connect to the Portuguese Bend Reserve. In fact, the City is recommending the public try Alta Vicente Reserve (located at 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.) as an alternative hiking location because of its ample parking near trailheads, public restrooms, interesting habitat restoration areas, and proximity to adjacent reserves and the City's California Coastal Trail. This Reserve also provides a connection to three other Reserves for the ambitious hiker. Additional actions taken by the City Council on August 18th included a social media campaign to educate the public on appropriate Preserve use and to encourage visitation where parking and amenities (such as restrooms) exist, and looking at parking for the 1 ,400-acre Preserve in a holistic way. The City understands that any actions taken to reduce or alter parking at one Preserve trailhead, may have impacts on the remaining 52 trailheads. And so staff and the City's traffic engineer are studying parking and traffic conditions along Crenshaw Blvd. north of Crest and other areas. You are correct that some of the acquisition funding used to purchase the Preserve property requires public access, reasonable parking, and would prevent the City from discriminating against users based on their location of residency. The majority of acquisition funding emphasizes protection of habitat and species and does not require public access. However, the City has never in the past, nor is it now proposing to discriminate against users based upon place of residency. This is a temporary restriction on parking until a solution is implemented. For clarification, the City's Coastal Zone, under the California Coastal Commission's jurisdiction, does not include the Portuguese Bend Reserve and extends from Palos Verdes Drive South/West to the ocean. The City provides public coastal access through the California Coastal Trail, and three Reserve properties with parking lots with trails that access the beach. The City is committed to transparency especially when it comes to Preserve operations and regularly publishes information on Preserve operations and policies. The public was notified of the August 18th agenda item at the July 15, 2020 Preserve Public Forum. This is a quarterly public meeting held by the City to increase transparency and solicit public feedback on Preserve operations. Information on the August 18th and September 1st agenda items was also sent out through a combination of the City's Preserve listserv group and Breaking News listserv group on the following dates: 8/11/20, 8/17/20, and 8/26/20 to notify the public and solicit feedback, as well as social media. Electronic boards are being used to inform the public of the temporary parking prohibition. 5 Please feel free to reach out to me directly if I can provide additional information . The City works hard to keep our open space areas open to the public while protecting its natural resources. However, the specific actions City Council took on August 181h, is temporary for 60 days, and the City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider more information at its October 20 meeting. Moreover, at the meeting, the City Council specifically placed a timeline on the parking prohibition to emphasize the importance of finding a solution quickly that will restore parking in a safer and more functional way to this area. Please find a link to all 12 Reserves that form the 1 ,400-acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve below. http://www.rpvca.gov/1148/Nature-Reserve-lnformation-Traii-Maps Thank you, Katie Lozano Senior Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 31 0-544-52 67 katiel@rpvca.gov 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 . 6 From: Daniel Melling <dmelling@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 7:15PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Reverse the "no parking" restrictions on Crenshaw Blvd. near Portuguese Bend Reserve Dear city councilmembers, I am writing to express my profound concern with your decision on Aug. 18 to enact new parking restrictions along Crenshaw Blvd. that create a public safety hazard and block public access to the Portuguese Bend Reserve for an indefinite period of time. Your council should immediately move to reverse this decision, restore safe parking along Crenshaw Blvd. in close proximity to the Bantam Road trailhead, and urgently seek a solution that improves access to this significant open space for residents and nonresidents, especially those who have historically been excluded from property ownership and public access to open spaces on the Palos Verdes peninsula. I grew up in Rancho Palos Verdes and graduated from Peninsula High. My parents still own a home near Cornerstone Elementary and I visit frequently, often taking advantage of the beautiful hiking along the coast. As a teenager, I loved walking across the peninsula's trails and volunteered with the PVPLC in clearing non- native species. In no small part due to my experiences in RPV's open spaces, I have pursued a career working for environmental protection and I currently lead communications for UCLA School of Law's environmental policy center. I listened to the entire Aug. 18 discussion of the trailhead and was impressed with the expertise and knowledge that city staff shared as you debated a solution. But I was dismayed by your unanimous decision to restrict parking along Crenshaw Blvd. If anything, the city should temporarily increase parking along the public street, a move that in tandem with the new gate at Bantam Rd., would relieve homeowners' principal concerns over early morning hikers and double parking along the public street. There are many troubling aspects to your decision to restrict parking along Crenshaw Blvd. that I wanted to highlight: • The parking restrictions create a major safety hazard for residents and nonresidents alike, increasing the risk of vehicle collisions and serious pedestrian injuries along a stretch of Crenshaw Blvd. where cars and trucks routinely drive at more than 45 miles per hour. I visited the street today and On one side of the street, a waist-high collision barrier installed to prevent vehicles from crashing at speed into nearby backyards stands between the curb and parking. Two city A-frames at the top of the intersection are the only signage to indicate that parking is in fact legal along the street. 7 • The new parking restrictions reinforce the Palos Verdes peninsula 's reputat ion for hostility to outsiders in open spaces, especia lly Latino and Black visitors, who have historically been exc lud ed .Qy racial covenants from purchasing properties on the peninsula and today make up only 7 percent of it s res id ents. The restrictions add to a long history in Ca liforni a of homeowners excluding the public from the coast through parking restrictions , lega l or ill ega l. Whil e sanct ion ed by lawmakers, Rancho Pa lo s Verdes 's "no parking " measures have the same effect as the illegal red-painting of curbs by a vandal in La Jolla earli er this summer: deterring non -residents from enjoy ing a protected public space that is onl y access ibl e by car . • The new restrictions force visitors to park a further half mile away on a major arteria l road and present a s ignifi cant barrier for entry for all visitors-but especia lly families, those with mobility constraints, and the elderly . • Homeowners' complaints are not new. The city has a lready sign ifi cant ly reduced public access to open space before at the request of local residents. In 2015, the c ity cut 42 parking spots a long the same stretch of Crenshaw Blvd., by painting curbs red. The c ity a lso added s ign age on neighborhood streets restricting visitor parking . Local homeowners have contributed to traffic and parking problems by consistent ly opposing sensible city proposals to address traffic and parking, calling parking meters "b li ght" and suggesting the Gateway Park lot would in crease cr im e . • The city's new "no parking " order will be in effect for 65 days as city staff produce a more complete parking plan for the reserve , but staff have already extensively studied and made detailed recommendations for parking options. • Councilmembers at the Aug . 18 meeting acknowledged the city is unlikely by early November to have decided , let alone impl ement any alternat iv e parking p lan. As a resu lt , the city cou ld vote to ind efinitely extend the "temporary" parking restrictions for any number of two-month periods. • The counci l came to a decision without hearing perspectives from Rancho Pa lo s Verdes residents who require parking to access the trailhead . Non -residents were a lso denied a voice in the decision, even though many have made financial or volunteer contributions to PVPLC and may liv e in communities devoid of open space . While the c ity owns much of the land in the reserve , it was purchased with funding from the state, county, and private individu a ls. • The new parking restr ict ions may violate the deed of sa le for the Portuguese Bend Reserve. At the Aug. 18 meeting , a city staffer noted that as part of the city's 2005 purchase agreement for the parcel, the c ity was "requ ir ed to provide adequate, reasonable parking for the reserve " and cannot give preferential treatment to anyone based on their residence for entry into the reserve. 8 • The "no parking " measure is not a recommended solution among several analyzed by city staff, who concluded painting curbs red would require "extensive public outreach before implementation." The Aug. 18 vote would have gone into effect without notice but for the special ordinance requirement for street changes. The public was provided just seven days' notice via updates to the city 's Facebook and Twitter accounts. • It's not clear the new parking restrictions improve public safety , a requirement for the special ordinance. The plan shunts street parking down Crenshaw Blvd. to a segment of road with much faster and higher volumes of vehicle traffic , where parallel parking would be more likely to result in collisions and pedestrians are at far greater risk of serious injury. • The parking restrictions may attract the scrutiny of the California Coastal Commission, which has previously weighed in on parking at Aba lone Cove . In the interest of public safety along Crenshaw Blvd. and public access to the Portuguese Bend Reserve , I strongly encourage you to reverse the city's "temporary" parking restrictions motion from Aug. 18 and move quickly to implement a more comprehensive solution , choosing from the sensible proposals your staff have recommended. Daniel Melling 9 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Ms. Melling, Katie Lozano Tuesday, September 1, 2020 4:20PM pvmellings@yahoo.com CC; CityCierk RE: Del Cerro parking restrictions Thank you for your email. It is actually the City of Rancho Palos Verdes that owns and manages the 1,400-acre Nature Preserve (with the exception of a small section of one of the twelve properties), and it is the City of Rancho Palos Verdes policy decisions that resulted in making the Preserve available for public access. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) is our dedicated and talented partner that manages the habitat within our Preserve. Here is some context. The 410-acre Portuguese Bend Reserve is one of twelve Nature Reserve properties that form the 1,400-acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve (Preserve) in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The City acquired the majority of the Preserve to enroll in the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) which is part of a permit the City receives from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to provide for the regional protection of plants and animals and their habitats, while at the same time allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity. Per our NCCP/HCP, the primary purpose of the Preserve is preservation of our four listed animal species (some of which are federally endangered), and their habitats. Public access is not a requirement of our Preserve per the NCCP/HCP. However, due to unanimous public support, the City took action to make public access in the form of passive recreation a covered activity under our NCCP/HCP. This means that public access to the Preserve is permissible as long as it does not have a detrimental impact on the protected species and habitat within the Preserve. The City has worked hard and passionately with the Wildlife Agencies, the City's Habitat Manager (PVPLC) and the community to balance natural resource protection with public access to keep this amazing open space area open to the public, and we have successfully done so for the past twenty years. Moreover, the City manages all 1,400 acres of open space, not the County, PVPLC, or other state and federal agencies. Some efforts the City, has taken to invite and educate the public on the Preserve include public day hikes, public night hikes, a Jr. Ranger Program, and school tours. Of course, these offerings are largely on hold right now due to Los Angeles County Health orders related to Covid-19. The action the City Council took on August 18, 2020 was very specific to temporarily prohibiting parking for 60-days on a stretch of road (Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd.) that has been problematic over the past ten years, while staff brings a solution forth to restore parking in a safer, responsible, and manageable way to this area with minimal impacts to surrounding properties. This stretch of road has been problematic, because it serves as the parking and access area to the City's most popular Reserve (the Portuguese Bend Reserve) as well as the Filiorum Reserve and Del Cerro Park. This stretch of road sees more than 240,000 visitors annually, and as a parking and staging area, was never designed to handle this level of use nor was this envisioned at the time the Preserve was being created. Traffic impacts on this stretch of road are exacerbated because it dead ends in a residential neighborhood with no designated U-turn mechanism. Use has increased substantially over the past 10 years, largely due to social media, and more recently, increases in trail use experienced throughout LA County since LA County Health Department trail closures were relaxed in May. In light of the Council's motion, public parking remains available for the Portuguese Bend and Filiorum Reserves on Crenshaw Blvd. north of Crest Rd., and at the other 10 Reserve properties throughout the City, many of which connect to the Portuguese Bend Reserve. In fact, the City is recommending the public try Alta Vicente Reserve (located at 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.) as an alternative hiking location because of its ample parking near trailheads, public restrooms, interesting habitat restoration areas, and proximity to adjacent reserves and the City's California Coastal Trail. This Reserve also provides a connection to three other Reserves for the ambitious hiker. E. Additional actions taken by the City Council on August 18th included a social media campaign to educate the public on appropriate Preserve use and to encourage visitation where parking and amenities (such as restrooms) exist, and looking at parking for the 1,400-acre Preserve in a holistic way. The City is committed to transparency especially when it comes to Preserve operations and regularly publishes information on Preserve operations and policies. The topic of parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve and upcoming City Council agenda item was discussed at the July 15, 2020 Preserve Public Forum. This is a quarterly public meeting held by the City to increase transparency and solicit public feedback on Preserve operations. Information on the August 18th and September 1st agenda items was also sent out through a combination of the City's Preserve listserv group and Breaking News listserv group on the following dates: 8/11/20,8/17/20, and 8/26/20 to notify the public and solicit feedback, as well as social media. Please find links below to attend a Preserve Public Forum or sign up for the City's listserv notifications. http://www. rpvca .gov /705/Qua rterly-Pu bl ic-Fo rum-Meetings http:/ /www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx Please feel free to reach out to me directly if I can provide additional information. The City works hard to keep our open space areas open to the public while protecting its natural resources. However, the specific actions City Council took on August 18th, is temporary for 60 days, and the City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider more information at its October 20 meeting. Moreover, at the meeting, the City Council specifically placed a time line on the parking prohibition to emphasize the importance of finding a solution quickly that will restore parking in a safer and more functional way to this area. Please find a link to all 12 Reserves that form the 1,400-acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve below. http://www. rpvca .gov I 1148/Nature-Reserve-1 nformation-Tra ii-Ma ps Thank you, Katie Lozano Senior Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5267 katiel@rpvca.gov 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. -----Original Message----- From: Marian UK Mobile <pvmellings@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 3:28PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Del Cerro parking restrictions 2 Hello Council Members I understand that you are holding a meeting today to discuss the parking restrictions near Del Cerro park, which will severely limit access to the public Nature Preserve that was fought for so valiantly by the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy for ALL to enjoy. That a few homeowners in the area could have managed to persuade the Council to block access to a public recreation area is inconceivable, and is an example of NIMBYism at its very worst. By painting the curbs red, and denying safe parking in the area means that even RPV residents like myself will be unable to visit, let alone the non-local visitors who are absolutely entitled to access this beautiful space. During this pandemic, it seems especially cruel to make it difficult, or even impossible to access open spaces, and your decision would seem to fly in the face of what this unique piece of land was acquired for. I am appalled at the selfishness of these homeowners, and would urge you to consider a fairer solution. Thank you, Mary Melling 3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Mr. Giese, Katie Lozano Tuesday, September 1, 2020 4:22PM doug@giese .com CC; CityCierk FW: Thank you for closing Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd Thank you for email and input . This will be included as late correspondence with tonight's City Council agenda item on the topic of Preserve access on Crenshaw Blvd . Thank you, Katie Lozano Senior Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310 -544-5267 katie I@ rpvca .gov 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: Doug Giese <doug@giese .com > Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 4:02 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov > Subject: Thank you for closing Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd I went hiking with my dog today and happened to stop at Del Cerro park. I was pleased to see that Crenshaw Blvd. so uth of Crest Rd is now closed to public parking (I don't have details yet). A Ranger was parked at the end of the parking lot in Del Cerro and he informed me I should watch the recording of last week's counci l meeting on RPV TV . I wi ll do that. Thanks again. The situation at Del Cerro and the Reserves was out of contro l , as I emai led perhaps a month ago. Respectfull y, Doug Giese 27938 Beechgate Dr. RPV , CA 90275 From: Se nt: To : Subject: Attachments: Late cmT From: Ken Rukavina Teresa Takaoka Tuesday , September 1, 2020 8:22 PM CityCierk Fw : Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership 2020-9-1 -Californians Letter to City Council.pdf Se nt: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 7:28 :00 PM To: Teresa Takaoka ; Nathan Zweizig Sub ject: FW: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership Ken Rukavina, PE Director of Community Development ~City of Rancho Palos Verdes 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 <admin@caforhomes.org> On Behalf Of matt@caforhomes .org Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 6 :56 PM To: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca .gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken .Dyda@rpvca .gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca .gov> Cc: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca .gov>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; wwynder@awattorneys.com; egerli@awattorneys.com; 'Nickless, Greg@HCD' <Greg .Nickless@hcd .ca.gov > Subject: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership To the City Council : Please see the attached correspondence regarding Public Hearing Item 1 being considered at your upcoming meeting. TO STAFF : In light of the length of the letter, we are not asking that the letter be read into the record. Instead, we ask that you read this statement : "Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non -profit organization devoted to using legal tools to address California's housing crisis . You have been provided with a letter we submitted as part of our work monitoring local compliance with California's laws regarding accessory dwelling units . Our letter follows up on our recent correspondence to the Planning Commission regarding the City's draft ADU ordinance. Our detailed concerns about the City's draft ordinance are explained our letter. In this statement, we wish instead to highlight the City 's 1 \. continuing refusal to answer one simple question about staff's proposed ordinance: How does requiring enclosed parking rather than unenclosed parking reduce fire risk? There is no legitimate explanation for this policy, which reflects the City's aesthetic preferences, not concerns about fire safety . Enclosed parking is, if anything, more dangerous, because it can impede evacuation during a power failure as compared with unenclosed parking. The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a logical basis for requiring enclosed parking, and it removed the enclosed parking requirement from the draft ordinance. Puzzlingly, staff are now proposing to add it back in . Once again, staff have not identified any logical connection between fire safety and an enclosed parking requirement. We commend the City for its commitment to ensuring the safety and welfare of its residents, including in connection with the development of ADUs. But the proposed enclosed parking requirement makes the city more dangerous, not safer . We implore you to direct staff to consult with the state Department of Housing and Community Development on this and the other issues we have identified before you adopt this ordinance." Sincerely, Matthew Gelfand Matthew Gelfand Counsel , Californians for Homeownership 525 S. Virgil A venue Los Angeles, CA 90020 matt@caforhomes.org Tel: (213) 739-8206 Californians for Homeownership is a 50l(c)(3) non-profit organization that works to address California 's housing crisis through impact litigation and other legal tools . 2 CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP VIA EMAIL City Council City ofRancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 September 1, 2020 MAITHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL MAIT@CAFORHOMES.ORG TEL: (213) 739-8206 Email: john.cruikshank@ rpvca.gov ; eric.alegria@ rpvca.gov; david.bradley@ rpvca .gov; ken.dyda@ rpvca.gov; barbara.ferraro@ rpvca.gov ; cc@ rpvca .gov RE: September 1, 2020 City Council Meeting, Public Hearing Item 1 To the City Council: Californians for Homeownership is a 50 I (c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to using legal tools to address California 's hou s ing crisis. Tam writing as pa1t of our work monitoring local compliance with California's laws regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs). This letter follows up on our extensive prior correspondence to the Planning Commission , which provided detailed feedback on the City 's draft ADU ordinance . Tf the City adopts a compliant ADU ordinance, it will be able to maintain certain local controls on ADU development. You will consider the ordinance at your September I, 2020 meeting. Unfortunately, although the Planning Commission addressed some of our concerns, others remain unaddressed. And, puzzlingly, staff are recommending that you affirmatively undo some of the changes made by the Planning Commission in response to our concerns . We urge you to continue this item and to direct staff to return with a compliant ordinance. As part ofthat process , staff should consult with the state Department ofHousing and Community Development (HCD), the agency that now has regulatory authority over the state ADU laws . See Gov. Code §§ 65852.2(h), (i). We have copied HCD staff on this letter to allow them to follow our discussion with the City. City staff have consistently refused to engage in a discussion with HCD, presumably because they know that it will result in changes to their preferred ordinance. The City gains nothing by delaying the inevitable . The rest ofthis letter explains our remaining concerns about the draft ordinance. Enclosed Parking As originally drafted , the ordinance contained several unlawful regulations that we consider to be aesthetic in nature, but which the City suggested might have a basis in ensuring fire safety. We commend the City for its commitment to ensuring the safety and welfare of its 525 5 . Virgil Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90020 September I. 2020 Page 2 residents, including in connection with the development of ADUs. As you hopefully know, all of the City's ordinary building and safety policies (with a narrow exception related to fire sprinklers) already apply to ADUs. But the City's draft ordinance contained special zoning policies related to ADUs. We told the Planning Commission that we believed that the proposed policies pretextually sought to enforce the City's aesthetic preferences in the name of fire safety. Specifically, the draft proposed requiring enclosed parking for ADUs. As City staff have acknowledged, this is prohibited by state ADU law. Gov. Code§ 65852.2(a)(I)(D)(x). There is no safety basis for requiring enclosed rather than unenclosed parking. Indeed, in the event of a power outage during an evacuation event the use of enclosed parking will make evacuation harder, not easier. And enclosed parking increases the portion of a lot that covered in potentially combustible building. Over the course of several Planning Commission meetings, we repeatedly asked the Commission to identify the logical connection between the fire safety and enclosed parking. The Commission could not do so. We have also separately sent staffemails asking them to explain the fire safety basis for this policy. They could not do so. At the end of the day, acknowledging the lack of a logical connection between fire safety and enclosed parking, the Commission removed the enclosed parking requirement from the draft ordinance. Now staff are asking you to add it back in. Once again, staff have not identified a single logical connection bet\veen fire safety and an enclosed parking requirement. Because there is none. Enclosed parking makes the City more dangerous. The enclosed parking requirement is an unlawful aesthetic requirement and it must be eliminated. If the City does not eliminate the enclosed parking requirement before adopting its ordinance, we will likely sue the City to invalidate the ordinance. Other Regulations Presented as Fire Sa{etv Rules The City is proposing two other rules that it has said are justified by fire safety concerns, without adequately explaining why. First, the City plans to require replacement parking for garages conve11ed to ADUs. This is prohibited by state law. Gov. Code§ 65852.2(a)(I)(D)(xi). The City's concerns seem to relate to the safety impacts of on-street parking on narrow streets, but the City is ignoring a simple solution: ban or regulate on-street parking where it is dangerous. If on-street parking in an area blocks adequate ingress and egress, those spots are just as dangerous when occupied by residents of primary residences as they are when occupied by residents of AD Us. The City is not allowed to prohibit badly-needed housing as an alternative to adopting safe policies regarding on-street parking. Second. the City has adopted a ban on ADUs based on the availability of ingress and egress routes meeting certain criteria. To be sure, this sort of partial ban may be appropriate to address concerns about evacuation and fire equipment access. But the City's rules have been developed without actually consulting with the fire safety professionals that serve the City. The input of those 525 S. Virgil Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90020 CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP September I , 2020 Page 3 professionals is critical in order to identify the necessary standards for ensuring adequate ingress and egress for evacuation and fire equipment access. And we are extremely concerned by the City's plan to use full discretionary review to adjudicate exceptions to these rules. Staff have openly acknowledged that this choice was made to give the City control over "potential issues raised by the proposed ADU, including but not limited to density, parking. setbacks, and landscaping, as well as aesthetics." The City's exception process should involve a professional assessment directed to fire safety issues, not aesthetics. More generally, the City has no explanation for its treatment of ADUs in particular as a fire safety concern. ADUs are among the lowest-intensity conceivable uses of land. The City must consider its other land use policies, including policies concerning commercial and retail uses and other residential uses, in considering its ADU policies. If the City adopts provisions limiting AD Us because they create an inappropriately intensive use ofland, it should expect litigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) if it later approves retail, commerciaL or other residential uses in those same areas. Other Unlawfit! Provisions In addition to the issues raised above, we have the following concerns about the draft ordinance: • The staff report before you suggests that the City intends to apply iLs ordinaty "street side setback'' to ADUs. This is unlawful. Street side setbacks are side setbacks. For an ADU that is not a conversion or rebuild, the maximum side setbacks are four feet. Gov. Code § 65852.2(a)(l )(D)(vii). This rule applies to all side setbacks, not just those that the City deems appropriate. • The draft ordinance prohibits standard ADUs (including attached ADUs and conversions of livable space) in connection with multifamily buildings, \Vhich appears to reflect a misunderstanding regarding the structure of state ADU law. While it is true that many owners of multifamily dwellings will choose to develop the special multifamily ADU types provided by subdivision (e) of Government Code Section 65852.2, an applicant may instead choose to develop a single ADU under subdivision (a). As of Janumy I, 2020, subdivision (a) has been modified to replace references to "single-family dwelling" with "primary dwelling." • The draft ordinance contains an "architectural standard" that requires an ADU to be ''clearly subordinate to the primary residence in both [] height and width." This is a size and height standard, not an architectural standard. State ADU law sharply limits local standards regulating size and height, and the City cannot override those standards by mischaracterizing the rule as an "architectural standard." • The draft ordinance improperly requires 5-foot side and rear setbacks for ADUs. See Gov. Code§ 65852.2(a)(l )(D)( vii). There is no fire safety explanation for this policy, because the City's building and safety regulations already require appropriate use of fire resistive materials and limit fenestration as needed to address fire safety close to property lines. 525 S. Virgil Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90020 CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP Se pt e mbe r I , 2 0 2 0 Page 4 • Th e draft ordinan ce 's setb ac k exempti o n for conve rs io ns is in c ompl e te. T he o rdin a nce must prov id e a setba c k exe mption f o r c on vers ion s as we ll as re build s and pmti a l c on ve rs ion s. Gov . C od e § 6 5852 .2(a)( I )(D)(v ii). • T he dra ft o rdin a nce do es no t prov id e th e re quire d s pe cial treatm e nt for th e categ ori es of A DUs li s te d in Gove rnm e nt C ode Se cti o n 6 5 8 52 .2 ( e)(l ). Th e se AD U s mu s t b e mini s te riall y pe rmitte d "notwith standin g " th e provi s ion s a llo w in g c iti es to pass loc a l A DU ordinan ces, m e anin g th a t th ese A DUs mu s t be approv ed w ithout appl y in g an y loc a l d eve lo pm e nt s tand a rd s , s u c h as fr o nt-yard setbac ks , lo cation a l res tri c tion s , a nd s ize limits n o t s pe c ifi ca ll y id e ntifi e d in Section 6 5852.2(e). Accordin g to g uidan ce fr o m H C D , th ese A D Us "d o [] no t necess it at e a z onin g c leara nce a nd mu st not b e limite d to ce rt a in z on es or a re a s o r subj ect to he ig ht, lot s ize, lot coverage , unit s ize, a rc hit e ctura l rev iew, la nd scape o r pa rkin g re quire m e nt s ," a nd H C D has iss ue d non -c ompliance le tt e rs to c iti es that have imprope rl y appli e d local d e v e lopm e nt s tandard s to th ese A D Us. A lthou g h th e draft o rdin a n ce prov ide s s om e con s id e ra tion f o r co nvers ion s of ex is tin g s pace, thi s tre atm e nt is in co mpl e t e. Fo r more info rm ation o n th e C ity 's o bli g ation s und e r s ubdi v is ion (e), we direc t th e C it y 's atte ntion t o th e h e lpful s in g le-famil y ADU fi ow-chart pre pa re d by st aff at th e C ity of Pa lo s Ve rd es Est ates , w hi c h id e ntifi es th e s ubdivi s io n (e)(l) A DU s a s "buildin g pe rmit onl y " ADU s: Converted Detached space structure Independent 2: 4' exterior setbacks? access? S 800 SF? Fire & safety setbacks? s 16'? MINISTERIAL Attached structure Meets criteria in ordinance (lot coverage, FAR, architectural standards, etc .)? Building Permit & Conditional Use Permit DISCRETIONARY requires Planning Commission approval To ass ist th e C ity in craft in g a ppropri at e la ng uage, we are prov idin g (be lo w) exampl e la ng ua ge ba sed on ordinan ces a dopte d by oth e r c iti es . * * * W e urge yo u to continue thi s it e m to a llow s taff t o con s ult w it h s taff a t H C D. If th e C it y 525 S. V i rgil Avenue Los Ange l es , CA goo20 CALIFORN IANS FOR HOMEOWNERSH IP September I, 2020 Page 5 is confident in its drafting decisions, it s hou ld have no reservations about discussing them with HCD. Sincerely, Matthew Gelfand cc: City ofRancho Pa lo s Verdes 525 S. Virgil Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90020 Ken Rukavina, Comm. Dev. Director (by email to krukavina@rpvca.gov) Amy Seeraty, Senior Planner (by emai l to amys @ rpvca.gov) Will iam W. Wynder, Esq., City Attorney (by emai l to wwynder@ awattorneys.com) E lena Q. Gerli , Esq., Attorney to the Comm . (by emai l to egerli @ awattorneys.com) California Department of Housing and Community Development Greg Nickless , Housing Po li cy Analyst (by emai l to greg.nickless @ hcd.ca.gov) CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP September I , 2020 Page 6 Example Language For Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(l) AD Us Units Subject to Limited Standards. Notwithstanding [the other sections of the local ADU ordinance], accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit permits shall be issued based solely on the standards set forth in this section and all applicable Building Code standards, as follows: (a) Internal AD Us. One accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling if all ofthe following apply: (1) The ADU or JADU unit is within the proposed space of a single-family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure and may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure. An expansion beyond the physical dimensions ofthe existing accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress. (2) The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling. (3) The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety. (4) The JADU complies with the requirements of Section 65852.22. (b) Detached ADUs. One detached, new construction, ADU that does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. The ADU may be combined with a JADU described in subsection (a)( I) ofthis section. A local agency may impose the following conditions on the accessory dwelling unit: (I) A total floor area limitation of not more than 800 square feet. (2) A height limitation of 16 feet. (c) Multifamily Dwelling ADUs ( 1) Multiple AD Us within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms. passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings. (2) A local agency shall allow at least one ADU within an existing multifamily dwelling and shall allow up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units. (d) Not more than two ADUs that are located on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling but are detached from that multifamily dwelling and are subject to a height limit of 16 feet and four-foot rear yard and side setbacks. (e) Rentals of ADU and JADU permitted pursuant to this section shall be for a term longer than 30 days. (f) Installation of fire sprinklers are not required in an ADU or JADU if sprinklers are not required for the primary residence. (g) ADUs and JADUs permitted under this section shall not be required to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility nor shall a related connection fee or capacity be charged unless the ADU or JADU is proposed to be constructed with a new single-family home. 525 S. Virgil Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90020 CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK SEPTEMBER 1, 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. D E 2 Description of Material Email exchange between Principal Engineer Dragoo and Jean Longacre Email from: Madeline Ryan Email exchange Senior Administrative Analyst Lozano and Daniel Melling; Dr. Tom Wayne Bertolotti; Niecia Staggs; Sarah Yawn; Kathy Christie; Brian Whitten; Rita Weissman; Emails from: Noah Aldonas; Gerard Melling; Laurie Smith; Judy Beckett; Mary Melling Updated attachment ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, August 31, 2020**. Respectfully submitted, L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\20200901 additions revisions to agenda.docx From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, September 1, 2020 12:14 PM CityCierk FW: 9-01-20 Consent Calendar Item D From: Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 12:14 PM To: jeanlongacre@aol.com Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: 9-01-20 Consent Calendar Item D Ms. Longacre, Ardurra is a consulting firm that the City uses from time to time to help us perform engineering designs of projects in our efforts to keep the City safe while addressing specific concerns in the City, Mr. Merrel is a design engineer who has worked on designing some of these projects for the City . This project is underway and has been partially designed, so changing design engineers at this point would be very costly which is why we are recommending continuing work with Ardurra . I will give you a call at the number listed below this afternoon, and feel free to contact me by phone (310) 544 - 5250 or email rond@rpvca.gov at any time . I can help answer questions you may have regarding the PVDE Safety Project . Sometimes all that is needed is someone that can translate engineer speak into language that is not so technical. I wanted you to know that RPV city staff are here to help you in whatever way we can. Warm regards, Ron Dragoo, PE Principal Engineer 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 From: jeanlongacre@aol.com <jeanlongacre@aol.com > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 2:54 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov > Subject: 9-01-20 Consent Calendar Item D Dear City Council, I am opposed to renewing the contract with Ardurra for on -ca ll engineering Services. Personally, I have found it difficult to communicate with their project manager, Bob Merrel , The staff report states that the PVDE Safety Project has been temporarily suspended pending approval of the contract with Ardurra because of Mr. Merrel's knowledge of the project. Surely there are other e ngineering companies who could handle the project , maybe even one with their head office in California. 1 o . Sincerely, Jean Longacre 6 Martingale Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 31 0-544-01 05 CC: City Clerk City Manager 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Madeline Ryan <pvpasofino@yahoo.com> Monday, August 31, 2020 8:04 PM cc CityCierk CC Meeting September 1, 2020 -Consent Calendar Item D Dear Mayor and Councilmembers - Under the Consent Calendar, Item D, City Staff is asking the Council to extend an 'on- service agreement' with Ardurra Group, Inc. I'm wondering why Staff didn't seek other bids months ago, knowing that Ardurra's agreement was coming to an end. As a resident of PVDE and involved from the beginning, when talks of the PVDE widening project first surfaced, approximately 1 1//2-2 years ago, I remain skeptical that the Ardurra group is the right firm for this project. Over the course of the last 2 years, there was never a clear vision from the Ardurra Group as to what this PVDE widening project would look like, (even though there were several public meetings/workshop and much input from the impacted homeowners), and why did they (Ardurra) avoid reclaiming public right of way encroachments in their design when that was the most feasible and sensible solution to widening the PVDE section in this project providing safe passage for pedestrians/equestrians between Bronco and Headland. If the CC decides to extend the 'on-service agreement' with Ardurra Group, please, if at all possible, do not allow Ardurra Group to be involved in the PVDE widening project that will have profound impacts in this Equestrian Zoned area, the neighborhood and the semi-rural character so unique to the peninsula. Thank you. Madeline Ryan PVDE resident From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Katie Lozano, Daniel Melling <drnelling@grnail.corn> Tuesday, September 1, 2020 3:31 PM Katie Lozano CC; CityCierk Re: FW: Reverse the "no parking" restrictions on Crenshaw Blvd. near Portuguese Bend Reserve Thank you for your detailed response. If it didn't come through enough in the blog post, I wanted to recognize both the immediate steps you have taken to relieve traffic impacts, through your online engagement and other measures, as well as the comprehensive, detailed, and sensible set of long-term solutions that you have proposed. I listened to the detailed presentation and comments by you and Cory Linder at the Aug. 18 meeting and read the city's extensive report on various parking options. I also recognize the significant challenge you face in balancing the interests of multiple stakeholders with fierce views on the right path forward. A few responses to specific points in your email: On the NCCP/HUP: I'm grateful for this additional context and history. I read the NCCP in preparation for this post (and the PUMP) and in a prior draft, I had included a line about wildlife conservation as the primary use for this land with a link to these documents. You are right to notice the absence of this point from my post. As you mention, ecological impact from passive use would justify restricting access to the preserve, but increased visitation amid the COVID-1 9 pandemic has not led to observed damage. On the temporary nature of the parking restrictions: On Aug. 18, I did not hear a specific call to remove the "no parking" signs and red curb painting at the end of the 60 day period. Is the city committed to removing the parking restrictions in November? What I heard on Aug. 18 was that councilmembers would likely vote to extend the restrictions for another two-month period, since another long-term solution would not have been implemented by then. The agenda item for today's meeting states, "If viable parking solutions are still incomplete, staff will bring this temporary no parking item back to the City Council at its November 4, 2020 meeting to consider its options including a time extension for the temporary no parking area." On the traffic situation: Your information on the history of neighborhood complaints and the city's response is helpful. I included some of these issues in my blog post, but not in as much detail as you provide. It's an important point that the city's long-term vision for reserve access was not for Burma Rd. to be the primary trailhead. On equitable access: As mentioned in my post, parking restrictions in wealthy areas are a common means for communities in California to restrict access to open spaces, not just on the coast, and have attracted considerable attention from media, activists, and state officials. Having visited the new public parking area on Crenshaw Blvd. yesterday, I am convinced that the parking on Crenshaw Blvd. north of Crest Rd. is unsafe and at a distance from the trailhead that would deter nonresident hikers, especially families, the elderly, and those with mobility issues, from parking and accessing the reserve. As the city has reported, 95% of visitors on weekends and holidays are nonresidents, often from nearby cities with far greater proportions of Black and Latino residents who have historically been excluded from homeownership on the Palos Verdes peninsula by racial covenants, and today make up on 1 1% of RPV's population. Parking restrictions that reduce access will have a disproportionate effect on visitors from low-income communities of color who use the Portuguese Bend 1 E. Reserve to gain fresh air, nature, and open space that does not exist in their neighborhoods. As you mention, the majority of funding for the purchase of the reserve focused on wildlife conservation and not public access- were there funding sources such as county, state, or private grants that do require considerations of equitable access? On coastal jurisdiction: Thank you for this clarification on the Coastal Zone. On public notice: Thank you for the further information about your additional public notices. As a nonresident, I am not on either of the listservs nor do I closely follow the public agenda of RPV meetings, so it's useful to hear about these communications. In pati, I wrote this post because many trail users, including myself and at least one PVPLC board member, were taken by surprise by the proposed parking restrictions. The city's report on parking options notes if the city chose to paint curbs red along Crenshaw Blvd., "extensive public outreach before implementation" would be needed. Is it fair to say that has occurred? Most of the notices you reference are for agenda items to discuss general neighborhood mitigation measures, not a specific proposal to restrict parking along Crenshaw Blvd. I looked back on the agenda item for the Aug. 18 city council meeting that you reference. Here is the text: Consideration and possible action to implement measures mitigating impacts to residential neighborhoods adjacent to Del Cerro Park and Portuguese Bend Reserve. (Trautner/Lozano) (60 mins) Recommendation: ( 1) Review and provide input on the short-term solutions implemented by Staff;(2) Direct Staff to pursue the following long-term solutions:a. Establish a parking reservation program on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road; and b. Establish a trailhead with parking at the toe of the Portuguese Bend Reserve (formerly known as Gateway Park); and, (3) Review and provide direction on alternative long-term solutions. This Aug. 18 agenda item includes no specific reference to painting curbs red and "no parking" signs, rather "measures mitigating impacts to residential neighborhoods," including the long-proposed permit system and Gateway Park concept that you had recommended as a parking solution and have public support. Red curbs might fold under "alternative long-term solutions," but I think we can both agree that doesn't count as public notice for discussion of the parking restrictions the council adopted. When was the city's first public notice specifically about the city's motion about painting red curbs and installing "no parking" signs on Crenshaw Blvd., besides the public decision on Aug. 18? I saw the Tweet and Facebook post from Aug. 27, but if the city provided any public notice before then (maybe the Aug. 26 listerv email?), please let me know. From my visit to the trailhead and Crenshaw Blvd. yesterday, I also noted that the two large banners on the fence and at the trailhead gate did not indicate this parking restriction would be "temporary" (it's possible the electronic boards at Crenshaw Blvd. did say "temporary" or specify the time period, but I regret I did not record the full text across 3 flashing messages). Thank you again for reading my blog post and for responding in such detail. I want to be clear that I come from a place of respect for the work that you, Cory Linder, and so many others have undertaken both to preserve access to the reserve, identify long-term parking solutions, and guarantee public safety, all in coordination with a wide group of constituents who care passionately about the reserve and their communities. Daniel 2 On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:16 PM Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hello Mr. Melling, Thank you for your email. City Staff has read your email, as well as your post on Legal-Planet, and there are some inaccuracies that warrant clarifying. The City would like to take the opportunity to provide more information on the actions the City Council took on August 18, 2020 and to provide some context. The 41 0-acre Portuguese Bend Reserve is one of twelve Nature Reserve properties that form the 1 ,400-acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve (Preserve) in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The City acquired the majority of the Preserve to enroll in the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) which is part of a permit the City receives from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (the Wildlife Agencies) to provide for the regional protection of plants and animals and their habitats, while at the same time allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity. Per our NCCP/HCP, the primary purpose of the Preserve is preservation of our four listed animal species (some of which are federally endangered), and their habitats. Public access is not a requirement of our Preserve per the NCCP/HCP. However, due to unanimous public support, the City took action to make public access in the form of passive recreation a covered activity under our NCCP/HCP. This means that public access to the Preserve is permissible as long as it does not have a detrimental impact on the protected species and habitat within the Preserve. The City has worked hard and passionately with the Wildlife Agencies, the City's Habitat Manager (the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy) and the community to balance natural resource protection with public access to keep this amazing open space area open to the public, and we have successfully done so for the past twenty years. Moreover, the City manages all 1 ,400 acres of open space, not the County, PVPLC, or other state and federal agencies. The PVPLC manages the habitat for the City. Some efforts the City, has taken to invite and educate the public on the Preserve include public day hikes, public night hikes, a Jr. Ranger Program, and school tours. Of course, these offerings are largely on hold right now due to Los Angeles County Health orders related to Covid-19. The action the City Council took on August 18, 2020 was very specific to temporarily prohibiting parking for 60-days on a stretch of road (Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd.) that has been problematic over the past ten years, while staff brings a solution forth to restore parking in a safer, responsible, and manageable way to this area with minimal impacts to surrounding properties. This stretch of road has been problematic, because it serves as the parking and access area to the City's most popular Reserve (the Portuguese Bend Reserve) as well as the Filiorum Reserve and Del Cerro Park. This stretch of road sees more than 240,000 visitors annually, and as a parking and staging area, was never designed to handle this level of use nor was this envisioned at the time the Preserve was being created. Traffic impacts on this stretch of road are exacerbated because it dead ends in a residential neighborhood with no designated U-turn mechanism. Use has increased substantially over the past 10 years, largely due to social media, and more recently, increases in trail use experienced throughout LA County since LA County Health Department trail closures were relaxed in May. In light of the Council's motion, public parking remains available for the Portuguese Bend and Filiorum Reserves on Crenshaw Blvd. north of Crest Rd., and at the other 10 Reserve properties throughout the City, many of which connect to the Portuguese Bend Reserve. In fact, the City is recommending the public try Alta Vicente Reserve (located at 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.) as an 3 alternative hiking location because of its ample parking near trailheads, public restrooms, interesting habitat restoration areas, and proximity to adjacent reserves and the City's California Coastal Trail. This Reserve also provides a connection to three other Reserves for the ambitious hiker. Additional actions taken by the City Council on August 18th included a social media campaign to educate the public on appropriate Preserve use and to encourage visitation where parking and amenities (such as restrooms) exist, and looking at parking for the 1 ,400-acre Preserve in a holistic way. The City understands that any actions taken to reduce or alter parking at one Preserve trailhead, may have impacts on the remaining 52 trailheads. And so staff and the City's traffic engineer are studying parking and traffic conditions along Crenshaw Blvd. north of Crest and other areas. You are correct that some of the acquisition funding used to purchase the Preserve property requires public access, reasonable parking, and would prevent the City from discriminating against users based on their location of residency. The majority of acquisition funding emphasizes protection of habitat and species and does not require public access. However, the City has never in the past, nor is it now proposing to discriminate against users based upon place of residency. This is a temporary restriction on parking until a solution is implemented. For clarification, the City's Coastal Zone, under the California Coastal Commission's jurisdiction, does not include the Portuguese Bend Reserve and extends from Palos Verdes Drive South/West to the ocean. The City provides public coastal access through the California Coastal Trail, and three Reserve properties with parking lots with trails that access the beach. The City is committed to transparency especially when it comes to Preserve operations and regularly publishes information on Preserve operations and policies. The public was notified of the August 18th agenda item at the July 15, 2020 Preserve Public Forum. This is a quarterly public meeting held by the City to increase transparency and solicit public feedback on Preserve operations. Information on the August 18th and September 1st agenda items was also sent out through a combination of the City's Preserve listserv group and Breaking News listserv group on the following dates: 8/11/20, 8/17/20, and 8/26/20 to notify the public and solicit feedback, as well as social media. Electronic boards are being used to inform the public of the temporary parking prohibition. Please feel free to reach out to me directly if I can provide additional information. The City works hard to keep our open space areas open to the public while protecting its natural resources. However, the specific actions City Council took on August 18th, is temporary for 60 days, and the City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider more information at its October 20 meeting. Moreover, at the meeting, the City Council specifically placed a timeline on the parking prohibition to emphasize the importance of finding a solution quickly that will restore parking in a safer and more functional way to this area. 4 Please find a link to a ll 12 Reserves that form the 1 ,400-acre Pa lo s Verdes Nature Preserve below. http://www.rpvca.gov/1148/Nature-Reserve-lnformation-Traii-Maps Thank you, Kat ie Lozano Sen ior Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Pa los Verdes 31 0-544-5267 katiel@rpvca.gov 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: Daniel Melling <dme lling@gmail.com > Sent: Monday, August 31, 20 20 7 :15 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov > Subject: Reverse the "no parking" rest ric t ion s on Cre nshaw Blvd. ne ar Portuguese Bend Reserve 5 Dear city counc ilm embers , I am writing to express my profound concern with your decision on Aug . 18 to enact new parking restrictions alon g Crenshaw B lvd . that create a public safety hazard and block public access to the Portuguese Bend Reserve for an ind efinit e period of time. Your counci l shou ld immediately move to reverse t hi s dec ision , restore safe parking along Crensha w Blvd . in c lo se proximity to the Bantam Road trailhead , and urgently seek a so luti on that imp ro ves access to this s ignific ant open space for residents and nonresidents, especia lly those who have historically been exc lu ded from propert y own ersh ip and public access to open spaces on the Pa los Verdes pen in su la . I grew up in Rancho Pa los Verdes and graduated from Pen in su la High. My parents st ill own a home near Cornerstone Elementary and I visit frequently , often taking advantage of the beaut iful hikin g alon g the coast. As a teenager, I lov ed w alking across the peninsula's tra il s and volunteered with the PVPLC in c lear in g non - native spec ies. In no sma ll part due to my experiences in RP V's open spaces , I have pursued a career workin g for en vi ronmenta l protect ion and I current ly lead commun icat io ns for UCLA Schoo l of Law 's env ironmenta l policy center. I li stened to the entire Aug. 18 discussion of the trailhead and was impressed with the expert ise and knowledge that c ity staff shared as you debated a so lution . But I was dismayed by your unanimous decision to restrict parking a lon g Crenshaw Blvd . If anything, the city shou ld temporarily in crease parking along t he pub li c street, a move that in tandem with the new gate at Bantam Rd ., would relieve homeowners' pr in c ip al concerns over early morning hikers a nd double parking a lon g the pub li c street. There are many troubling aspects to your decision to restrict parking alon g Crensha w B lvd. that I wanted to highlight: • The parking restr ict ions create a major safet y hazard for residents and nonresidents a lik e, increas in g the ri sk of ve hi c le collisions and serious pedestrian injuri es a lon g a stretch of Cre ns haw Blvd . where cars and trucks routinely drive at more than 45 miles per hour. I visited the street today and On one side of the st reet, a waist-high collision barrier in sta ll ed to prevent vehicles from crashing at speed into nearby backyards stands between the curb and parking. Two c ity A -frames at the top of the int ersectio n are the on ly s ignage to indic ate that parking is in fact lega l a long the street. • The new parking restr ict ion s reinforce the Pa lo s Verdes peninsula's reputatio n for hostility to outsiders in open spaces, especia lly Lat in o and Black visitors, wh o have historically been exc luded .Qy racial covenants from purchasing properties on the peninsula and toda y make up on ly 7 percent of it s residents. The restrictions add to a long history in Ca li fornia of homeowners excluding the public from the coast through parking restrictions , lega l or ill ega l. Whil e sanctioned by lawm akers, Rancho Pa lo s Verdes 's "no park in g " measures have the same effect as the illegal red -painting of curbs by a vandal 6 in La Jolla earlier this summer: deterring non-residents from enjoying a protected public space that is on ly accessib le by car . • The new restrictions force visitors to park a further half mile away on a major arter ia l road and present a s ignifi cant barrier for entry for a ll visitors-but especia lly families, those with mobility constraints, and the e ld erly. • Homeowners' comp la int s are not new. The c ity has already s ign ifi cantly reduced public access to open space before at the request of local residents. In 2015, the city cut 42 park ing spots a lon g the same stretch of Crensha w Blv d ., by painting curbs red. The c ity a lso added s ignage on neighborhood streets restricting visitor parking. Local homeowners have contr ibut ed to traffic and parking problems by cons istent ly oppos in g sens ibl e c ity proposals to address traffic and parking, ca llin g parking meters "b li ght" and suggest in g the Gateway Park lot would increase cr im e. • The c ity 's new "no parking" order will be in effect for 65 days as c ity staff produce a more comp lete park ing plan for the reserve, but staff have a lready extensively stud ied and made detailed recommendations for parking opt ions . • Counci lm embers at the Aug. 18 meeting acknow ledged the c ity is unlikely by early November to have decided, let alon e impl ement any alternat iv e parking plan. As a result, the c ity cou ld vote to ind efin it e ly extend the "temporary" parking restrictions for any number of two -month periods . • The counci l came to a decision without hearing perspectives from Rancho Pa los Verdes residents who requ ire parking to access the trailhead. Non-residents were also denied a voice in the decision, even though many have made financial or volunteer contribut ions to PVPLC and may live in commun iti es devo id of open space . While the c ity owns much of the land in the reserve, it was purchased with funding from the state, county, and private in d ividu a ls . • The new parking restrictions may viol ate the deed of sale for the Portuguese Bend Reserve. At the Aug. 18 meeting, a c ity staffer noted that as part of the c ity 's 2005 purchase agreement for the parcel, the c ity was "required to provide adequate, reasonable parking for the reserve" and cannot g iv e preferential treatment to anyone based on their residence for entry int o the reserve . • The "no parking" measure is not a recommended so lution among severa l ana lyzed by c ity staff, who conc lud ed painting cu rb s red wou ld require "extensive public outreach before implementation." The Aug. 18 vot e would have gone int o effect without notice but for the spec ial ordinance requirement for street changes. The public was provided ju st seven days' notice via updates to the c ity 's Facebook and Twitter accounts. 7 • It's not clear the new parking restrictions improve public safety, a requirement for the special ordinance. The plan shunts street parking down Crenshaw Blvd. to a segment of road with much faster and higher volumes of vehicle traffic, where parallel parking would be more likely to result in collisions and pedestrians are at far greater risk of serious injury. • The parking restrictions may attract the scrutiny of the California Coastal Commission, which has previously weighed in on parking at Abalone Cove. In the interest of public safety along Crenshaw Blvd. and public access to the Portuguese Bend Reserve, I strongly encourage you to reverse the city's "temporary" parking restrictions motion from Aug. 18 and move quickly to implement a more comprehensive solution, choosing from the sensible proposals your staff have recommended. Daniel Melling 8 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: He llo Mr. Bertolotti, Katie Lozano Tuesday, September 1, 2020 12 :36 PM Tommaso W. Bertolotti; Trails CityC ierk RE: No parking south of Crest -I thought we were in this together Thank you for your emai l. The action the City Council took on August 18, 2020 was very specific to temporarily prohibiting parking for 60-days on a stretch of road (Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd .) that has been problematic over the past ten years, while staff brings a solut ion forth to restore parking in a safer, responsible, and manageable way to this area with minimal imp acts to surround ing properties. Th is stretch of road has been problematic, because it serves as the parking and access area to the City's most popular Reserve (the Portuguese Bend Reserve) as w el l as the Filio rum Reserve and Del Cerro Park. This stretch of road sees more than 240,000 visitors annually, and as a parking and staging area, was never designed to handle this level of use nor was th is envisioned at the time the Preserve was being created . Traffic impacts on this stretch of road are exacerbated because it dead ends in a residential neighborhood with no designated U-turn mechanism. Use has increased substant ia lly over the past 10 years, largely due to soc ia l media, and more recently, increases in trail use experienced throughout LA County s in ce LA County Health Department trail c losures were relaxed in May. In light of the Counci l's mot ion, public parking remains availab le for the Portuguese Bend and Filiorum Reserves on Crenshaw Blvd. north of Crest Rd., and at the other 10 Reserve properties throughout the City, many of which connect to the Portuguese Bend Reserve . In fact, the City is recommending the public try Alta Vicente Reserve (located at 30940 Hawthorne B lvd.) as an a lt ernative hiking loc at ion because of its amp le parking near trailheads, public restrooms, interesting habitat restoration areas, and proximity to ad j acent reserves and the City's Cal ifornia Coasta l Trail. This Reserve a lso provides a connection to three other Reserves for the amb itiou s hiker. Additional actions taken by the City Counci l on August 18 1h included a socia l media campaign to educate the public on appropriate Preserve use and to encourage visitation where parking and amenities (such as restrooms) exist , and lookin g at parking for the 1 ,400-acre Preserve in a holistic way. The C ity is comm itt ed to transparency espec ia lly when it comes to Preserve operations and regularly publishes information on Preserve operations and policies. The topic of parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve and upcoming City Counc il agenda item was discussed at the July 15, 2020 Preserve Pub li c Forum. This is a quarterly public meeting held by the City to increase transparency and solic it public feedback on Preserve operations. Information on the August 18th and September 1st agenda items was a lso sent out through a comb in at ion of the City's Preserve li stserv group and Breaking News listserv group on the following dates : 8/11/20, 8/1 7/20, and 8/26/20 to notify the public and so li cit feedback, as well as social media. Please find links below to attend a Preserve Public Forum or sign up for the City's li stserv notifications. http://www.rpvca.gov/705/Quarterly-Public-Forum-Meetings http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx 1 Please feel free to reach out to me directly if I can provide additional information. The City works hard to keep our open space areas open to the public while protecting its natura l resources . However, the specific actions City Council took on August 18 1h, is temporary for 60 days, and the City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider more information at its October 20 meeting. Moreover, at the meet ing, the City Council specifically placed a timeline on the parking prohibition to emphasize the importance of finding a solution quickly that will restore parking in a safer and more functional way to this area. Please find a link to all 12 Reserves that form the 1 ,400-acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve below. http://www.rpvca.gov/1148/Nature-Reserve-lnformation-Trail-Maps Thank you, Kat ie Lozano Senior Administrative Ana lyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 31 0-544-5267 katiel@rpvca.gov 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: Tommaso W. Bertolotti <tw.bertolotti@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesda y, September 1, 202 0 12:20 PM To: Trai ls <trai ls@rp vca.go v> Subject: No park i ng south of Crest-I thought we were in this together To whom this may concern, Hello I am a Redondo Beach resident , and since I have moved here two years ago hiking in the P011uguese Bend reserve has been one of my favorite pastimes. Today , as I went for a mind clearing hike , together with other people we were dismayed in seeing those signs stating that parking on Crenshaw south of Crest was now forbidden. My suspicions were confirmed: the "we 're in this together" that many people repeat religiously to themselves and to each other is nothing but a minty mouthwash. What they mean is indeed "we are in this at the same time", but for sure not together. How, otherwise , explain that the ugly head of egoism shows itself so shamelessly on the hills of beautiful Palos Verdes? We live in Redondo Beach. I totally understand the frustration of Rancho Palos Verdians who feel green when they see people from the South Bay invade their beauteous roads. Believe me , we feel the same . We hate the 2 fact that people from Palos Verdes come invade our beaches and the Burnout parking lot. We would love to put a big turnpike on PCH and Crenshaw or make sure you all head north to Hawthorne and don 't come driving down our California 1. And yet, we refrain from doing so. We welcome you. 2020 is hard for everyone. Everyone makes mistakes. Your blitz to prevent your fellow citizens from comfortably accessing some much needed greenery was clearly a mistake . Not the worst of 2020 and an easily amendable one. I urge you to reconsider it and walk it back, if not for common sense , at least for common decency , human fellowship , and Christian charity. Kind regards Tom Dr. Tom Wayne Bertolotti , Photographer (424)3508317 http:/ /portraitphilosophy.com Facebook -Instagram 3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Ms. Staggs, Katie Lozano Tuesday, September 1, 2020 12:46 PM nieciastaggs@ hotmail.com CC; CityCierk FW: New parking restrictions Thank you for your email. The action the City Council took on August 18, 2020 was very specific to temporarily prohibiting parking for 60-days on a stretch of road (Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd .) that has been problematic over the past ten years, while staff brings a solution forth to restore parking in a safer, responsible, and manageable way to this area with minimal impacts to surrounding properties. This stretch of road has been problematic, because it serves as the parking and access area to the City's most popular Reserve (the Portuguese Bend Reserve) as well as the Filiorum Reserve and Del Cerro Park . This stretch of road sees more than 240,000 visitors annually, and as a parking and staging area, was never designed to handle this level of use nor was this envisioned at the time the Preserve was being created. Traffic impacts on this stretch of road are exacerbated because it dead ends in a residential neighborhood with no designated U-turn mechanism. Use has increased substantially over the past 10 years, largely due to social media, and more recently, increases in trail use experienced throughout LA County since LA County Health Department trail closures were relaxed in May. In light of the Council's motion, public parking remains available for the Portuguese Bend and Filiorum Reserves on Crenshaw Blvd. north of Crest Rd ., and at the other 10 Reserve properties throughout the City, many of which connect to the Portuguese Bend Reserve. In fact, the City is recommending the public try Alta Vicente Reserve (located at 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.) as an alternative hiking location because of its ample parking near trailheads, public restrooms, interesting habitat restoration areas, and proximity to adjacent reserves and the City's California Coastal Trail. This Reserve also provides a connection to three other Reserves for the ambitious hiker. Additional actions taken by the City Council on August 18 1h included a social media campaign to educate the public on appropriate Preserve use and to encourage visitation where parking and amenities (such as restrooms) exist , and looking at parking for the 1 ,400-acre Preserve in a holistic way . The City is committed to transparency especially when it comes to Preserve operations and regularly publishes information on Preserve operations and policies. The topic of parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve and upcoming City Council agenda item was discussed at the July 15, 2020 Preserve Public Forum. This is a quarterly public meeting held by the City to increase transparency and solicit public feedback on Preserve operations. Information on the August 18th and September 1st agenda items was also sent out through a combination of the City's Preserve listserv group and Breaking News listserv group on the following dates : 8/11/20, 8/17/20, and 8/26/20 to notify the public and solicit feedback, as well as social media . Please find links below to attend a Preserve Public Forum or sign up for the City's listserv notifications. http://www.rpvca.gov/705/Quarterly-Public-Forum-Meetings http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx Please feel free to reach out to me directly if I can provide additional information . The City works hard to keep our open space areas open to the public while protecting its natural resources. However, the specific actions City Council took on August 181h, is temporary for 60 days, and the City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider more information at its October 20 meeting. Moreover, at the meeting, the City Council specifically placed a timeline on the parking prohibition to emphasize the importance of finding a solution quickly that wi ll restore parking in a safer and more functional way to this area . Please find a link to all 12 Reserves that form the 1 ,400-acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve below. http://www.rpvca.gov/1148/Nature-Reserve-lnformation-Traii-Maps Thank you, Katie Lozano Senior Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 31 0-544 -5267 katiel@rpvca.gov 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: Niecia . <nieciastaggs@hotmail.com > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 10:40 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca .gov> Subject: New parking restrictions Dear Council Members, I have worked on the Palos Verdes peninsula for the last 14 years. During that time I started visiting De l Cerro park. I have found it to be a wonderful retreat from civilization, without having to drive a few hours out of town. I am grateful for this large open public land. It makes no sense that you would prohibit parking on the street leading to the park. People will still go to the park. I will stil l go to the park. But now you will create a traffic nightmare as families drive up to the park and have to id l e in the street while they drop off children and elderly hikers. That is what I will do now. I take my elderly father to hike there. I can walk from wherever I park, but he can't. I will have to stop in the street to let him out, then go park and walk back. I know you think this will deter visitors, but it won't. Your parking restrictions will only create a dangerous situation at 2 the top of the street. My guess is that the homeowners along that area will not appreciate the car exhaust from all the cars idling during drop offs and pick ups. A better solution would be to create a dedicated parking lot for visitors to the public land. The nearby neighbors would not have to deal with parked cars if the public had a place to park off street. I know the neighbors would like to keep the public out of the public land, but that isn't going to happen. Even without parking, people will still make use of this designated public resource. Please reconsider your no parking zones, for the good of everyone. Thank you, Niecia Staggs. Niecia Staggs Certified Swim Coach Helping Triathletes Swim Better Since 1998 3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Ms . Yawn , Katie Lozano Tuesday, September 1, 2020 2 :27 PM Sarah Yawn CityCierk RE: Portuguese Bend Reserve Parking Restrictions Thank you for your email. The action the City Council took on August 18, 2020 was very specific to temporarily prohibiting parking for 60-days on a stretch of road (Crenshaw Blvd . south of Crest Rd.) that has been problematic over the past ten years, while staff brings a solution forth to restore parking in a safer, responsible, and manageable way to this area with minimal impacts to surrounding properties. This stretch of road has been problematic , because it serves as the parking and access area to the City's most popular Reserve (the Portuguese Bend Reserve) as well as the Filiorum Reserve and Del Cerro Park. This stretch of road sees more than 240,000 visitors annually, and as a parking and staging area, was never designed to handle this level of use nor was this envisioned at the time the Preserve was being created. Traffic impacts on this stretch of road are exacerbated because it dead ends in a residential neighborhood with no designated U-turn mechanism. Use has increased substantially over the past 10 years , largely due to social media, and more recently, increases in trail use experienced throughout LA County since LA County Health Department trail closures were relaxed in May . In light of the Council's motion, public parking remains available for the Portuguese Bend and Filiorum Reserves on Crenshaw Blvd . north of Crest Rd ., and at the other 10 Reserve properties throughout the City, many of which connect to the Portuguese Bend Reserve . In fact, the City is recommending the public try Alta Vicente Reserve (located at 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.) as an alternative hiking location because of its ample parking near trailheads, public restrooms, interesting habitat restoration areas, and proximity to adjacent reserves and the City's California Coastal Trail. This Reserve also provides a connection to three other Reserves for the ambitious hiker. Please find a link to all 12 Reserves that form the 1 ,400 -acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve below. http://www.rpvca.gov/1148/Nature-Reserve-lnformation-Trail-Maps Additional actions taken by the City Council on August 181h included a social media campaign to educate the public on appropriate Preserve use and to encourage visitation where parking and amenities (such as restrooms) exist, and looking at parking for the 1 ,400-acre Preserve in a holistic way. The City is committed to transparency especially when it comes to Preserve operations and regularly publishes information on Preserve operations and policies . The topic of parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve and upcoming City Council agenda item was discussed at the July 15, 2020 Preserve Public Forum . This is a quarterly public meeting held by the City to increase transparency and solicit public feedback on Preserve operations. Information on the August 18th and September 1st agenda items was also sent out through a combination of the City's Preserve listserv group and Breaking News listserv group on the following dates : 8/11/20, 8/17/20 , and 8/26/20 to notify the public and solicit feedback, as well as social media . Please find links below to attend a Preserve Public Forum or sign up for the City's listserv notifications . http://www.rpvca.gov/705/Quarterly-Public-Forum -Meetings http://www.rpvca .gov/list.aspx Please feel free to reach out to me directly if I can provide additional information. The City works hard to keep our open space areas open to the public while protecting its natural resources . However, the specific actions City Council took on August 18th , is temporary for 60 days, and the City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider more information at its October 20 meeting. Moreover, at the meeting, the City Council specifica lly placed a timeline on the parking prohibition to emphasize the import ance of finding a solution quickly that will restore parking in a safer and more functional way to this area . Thank you, Kat ie Lozano Senior Administrativ e Ana ly st Recreatio n and Parks Department Cit y of Ranch o Pa los Verdes 31 0 -544-5267 katiel@rpvca.gov 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: Sarah Yawn <sarah yawn@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:57 PM To: Trails <trails@rpvca .gov> Subject: Portuguese Bend Reserve Parking Restrictions Hello , I am writing to express my concern with the new parking restrictions at Portuguese Bend Reserve. With many of us being limited to what we can do during this pandemic, hikes and time outside has been such a vital resource for this community. Especiall y with many residents in neighboring areas not having access to air conditioning in the summer months , this park and trail provid es a space for families to enjoy the ocean breeze and daytime activity for children and pets who possibly don't have a ya rd to play in. By enacting parking restrictions , you are limiting access to a nature res erve that only reali stically allows the wealthy lo cal residents to access this va luabl e resource . This only further separates our community and takes away the opportunity for less affluent community members to experience the fresh air and nature that this reserve provides. I would strongly urge you to recon sider thi s dec ision. 2 Thank you, Sarah Yawn E: sarahyawn@gmail.com 3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Ms. Christie, Katie Lozano Tuesday , September 1, 2020 2:31 PM kmariechristie@gmail.com CC; CityCierk FW : Del Cerro parking Thank you for your email. The action the City Council took on August 18, 2020 was very specific to temporarily prohibiting parking for 60-days on a stretch of road (Crenshaw Blvd . south of Crest Rd.) that has been problematic over the past ten years, while staff brings a solution forth to restore parking in a safer, responsible, and manageable way to this area with minimal impacts to surrounding properties. This stretch of road has been problematic, because it serves as the parking and access area to the City's most popular Reserve (the Portuguese Bend Reserve) as well as the Filiorum Reserve and Del Cerro Park. This stretch of road sees more than 240,000 visitors annually, and as a parking and staging area, was never designed to handle this level of use nor was this envisioned at the time the Preserve was being created. Traffic impacts on this stretch of road are exacerbated because it dead ends in a residential neighborhood with no designated U-turn mechanism . Use has increased substantially over the past 10 years, largely due to social media, and more recently, increases in trail use experienced throughout LA County since LA County Health Department trail closures were relaxed in May. In light of the Council's motion, public parking remains available for the Portuguese Bend and Filiorum Reserves on Crenshaw Blvd. north of Crest Rd., and at the other 10 Reserve properties throughout the City, many of which connect to the Portuguese Bend Reserve . In fact, the City is recommending the public try Alta Vicente Reserve (located at 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.) as an alternative hiking location because of its ample parking near trailheads, public restrooms, interesting habitat restoration areas, and proximity to adjacent reserves and the City's California Coastal Trail. This Reserve also provides a connection to three other Reserves for the ambitious hiker. Please find a link to all 12 Reserves that form the 1 ,400 -acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve below. http://www.rpvca.gov/1148/Nature-Reserve-lnformation-Traii-Maps Additional actions taken by the City Council on August 181h included a social media campaign to educate the public on appropriate Preserve use and to encourage visitation where parking and amenities (such as restrooms) exist, and looking at parking for the 1 ,400-acre Preserve in a holistic way. You are correct that some of the acquisition funding used to purchase the Preserve property requires public access, reasonable parking, and would prevent the City from discriminating against users based on their location of residency . The majority of acquisition funding emphasizes protection of habitat and species and does not require public access. However, the City has never in the past, nor is it now proposing to discriminate against users based upon place of residency. This is a temporary restriction on parking until a solution is implemented. The City is committed to transparency especially when it comes to Preserve operations and regularly publishes information on Preserve operations and policies. The topic of parking for the Portuguese 1 E· Bend Reserve and upcoming C ity Council agenda item wa s discussed at the July 15, 2020 Preserve Public Forum. This is a quarterly public meeting held by the City to increase transparency and solicit pub lic feedback on Preserve operations. Information on the August 18th and September 1st agenda items was also sent out through a combination of the City's Preserve li stserv group and Breaking News listserv group on the following dates: 8/11/20, 8/17/20, and 8/26 /20 to notify the public and solicit feedback, as well as soc ia l media. Please find links below to attend a Preserve Public Forum or sign up for the C ity's listserv notifications . http://www.rpvca.gov/705/Quarterly-Public-Forum-Meetings http://www.rpvca .gov/list.aspx Please feel free to reach out to me directly if I can provide additional information. The City works hard to keep our open space areas open to the public while protecting its natural resources . However, the specific act ion s City Council took on August 18 1h, is temporary for 60 days, and the City Counci l is tentatively schedu led to consider more information at its October 20 meeting. Moreover, at the meeting , the City Counc il spec ifica lly placed a timeline on the parking prohibition to emphasize the importance of finding a solution quickly that will restore parking in a safer and more functiona l w ay to this area . Thank you, Katie Lozano Sen ior Admin istrat iv e Ana ly st Recreation and Parks Department City of Ranc ho Pa los Verdes 310-544-5267 katiel@rpvca.gov 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: Kathy Christie < > Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 11 :39 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov > Subject: Del Cerro parking Hello , RPV City Council! Thank yo u for all you do! I 'm writing with regard to the parking near Del Cerro park. I hope that you will reconsider your decision to paint the curbs near the park red to prevent parking. This park should be accessible to the public , and forcing 2 people to park far away will prevent some people from using the park and will force people to park in places that aren 't as safe , such as on Crenshaw north of Crest. My husband and his late first wife both served on the board of the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy and are featured on a plaque in the park. It 's a shame that despite a ll their hard work, this open space is less accessible to us than it once was. From what I've read , the city 's 2005 purchase agreement for the parcel says that the city is "required to provide adequate, reasonable parking for the reserve " and cannot give preferential treatment to anyone based on their residence for entry into the reserve. Creating onerous parking restrictions just to appease nearby hom eowners does not satisfy that agreement. Thank you for your consideration on this issue. -Kathy Kathy Christie 6851 Fa ircove Dr., Rancho Pa los Verdes , CA 90275 www.kathychristie .com 818.383 .9283 3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Mr. Whitten, Katie Lozano Tuesday, September 1, 2020 2:51 PM brianwhitten1965@msn.com CC; CityCierk FW: FYI. .. Thank you for email. Unfortunately the post linked below contains many inaccuracies that warrant correction. The City provided the following information to the author earlier today. The City would like to take the opportunity to provide more information on the actions the City Council took on August 18, 2020 and to provide some context. The 41 0-acre Portuguese Bend Reserve is one of twelve Nature Reserve properties that form the 1 ,400-acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve (Preserve) in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The City acquired the majority of the Preserve to enroll in the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) which is part of a permit the City receives from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (the Wildlife Agencies) to provide for the regional protection of plants and animals and their habitats, while at the same time allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity. Per our NCCP/HCP, the primary purpose of the Preserve is preservation of our four listed animal species (some of which are federally endangered), and their habitats. Public access is not a requirement of our Preserve per the NCCP/HCP. However, due to unanimous public support, the City took action to make public access in the form of passive recreation a covered activity under our NCCP/HCP. This means that public access to the Preserve is permissible as long as it does not have a detrimental impact on the protected species and habitat within the Preserve. The City has worked hard and passionately with the Wildlife Agencies, the City's Habitat Manager (the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy) and the community to balance natural resource protection with public access to keep this amazing open space area open to the public, and we have successfully done so for the past twenty years. Moreover, the City manages all 1,400 acres of open space, not the County, PVPLC, or other state and federal agencies. The PVPLC manages the habitat for the City. Some efforts the City, has taken to invite and educate the public on the Preserve include public day hikes, public night hikes, a Jr. Ranger Program, and school tours. Of course, these offerings are largely on hold right now due to Los Angeles County Health orders related to Covid-19. The action the City Council took on August 18, 2020 was very specific to temporarily prohibiting parking for 60-days on a stretch of road (Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd.) that has been problematic over the past ten years, while staff brings a solution forth to restore parking in a safer, responsible, and manageable way to this area with minimal impacts to surrounding properties. This stretch of road has been problematic, because it serves as the parking and access area to the City's most popular Reserve (the Portuguese Bend Reserve) as well as the Filiorum Reserve and Del Cerro Park. This stretch of road sees more than 240,000 visitors annually, and as a parking and staging area, was never designed to handle this level of use nor was this envisioned at the time the Preserve was being created. Traffic impacts on this stretch of road are exacerbated because it dead ends in a residential neighborhood with no designated U-turn mechanism. Use has increased substantially over the past 10 years, largely due to social media, and more recently, increases in trail use experienced throughout LA County since LA County Health Department trail closures were relaxed in May. In light of the Council's motion, public parking remains available for the Portuguese Bend and Filiorum Reserves on Crenshaw Blvd. north of Crest Rd., and at the other 10 Reserve properties throughout the City, many of which connect to the Portuguese Bend Reserve. In fact, the City is recommending the public try Alta Vicente Reserve (located at 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.) as an alternative hiking location because of its ample parking near trailheads, public restrooms, interesting habitat restoration areas, and proximity to adjacent reserves and the City's California Coastal Trail. This Reserve also provides a connection to three other Reserves for the ambitious hiker. Additional actions taken by the City Council on August 18th included a social media campaign to educate the public on appropriate Preserve use and to encourage visitation where parking and amenities (such as restrooms) exist, and looking at parking for the 1 ,400-acre Preserve in a holistic way. The City understands that any actions taken to reduce or alter parking at one Preserve trailhead, may have impacts on the remaining 52 trailheads . And so staff and the City's traffic engineer are studying parking and traffic conditions along Crenshaw Blvd. north of Crest and other areas. It is correct that some of the acquisition funding used to purchase the Preserve property requires public access, reasonable parking, and would prevent the City from discriminating against users based on their location of residency. The majority of acquisition funding emphasizes protection of habitat and species and does not require public access. However, the City has never in the past, nor is it now proposing to discriminate against users based upon place of residency. This is a temporary restriction on parking until a solution is implemented. For clarification, the City's Coastal Zone, under the California Coastal Commission's jurisdiction, does not include the Portuguese Bend Reserve and extends from Palos Verdes Drive South/West to the ocean. The City provides public coastal access through the California Coastal Trail, and three Reserve properties with parking lots with trails that access the beach . The City is committed to transparency especially when it comes to Preserve operations and regularly publishes information on Preserve operations and policies. The topic of parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve and upcoming City Council agenda item was discussed at the July 15, 2020 Preserve Public Forum. This is a quarterly public meeting held by the City to increase transparency and solicit public feedback on Preserve operations. Information on the August 18th and September 1st agenda items was also sent out through a combination of the City's Preserve listserv group and Breaking News listserv group on the following dates: 8/11/20, 8/17/20, and 8/26/20 to notify the public and solicit feedback, as well as social media. Please find links below to attend a Preserve Public Forum or sign up for the City's listserv notifications. http://www.rpvca.gov/705/Quarterly-Public-Forum-Meetings http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx Please feel free to reach out to me directly if I can provide additional information. The City works hard to keep our open space areas open to the public while protecting its natural resources. However, the specific actions City Council took on August 18th, is temporary for 60 days, and the City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider more information at its October 20 meeting. Moreover, at the meeting, the City Council specifically placed a timeline on the parking prohibition to emphasize the importance of finding a solution quickly that will restore parking in a safer and more functional way to this area. Please find a link to all 12 Reserves that form the 1 ,400-acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve below. http://www.rpvca.gov/1148/Nature-Reserve-lnformation-Traii-Maps 2 Thank you, Katie Lozano Senior Adm i nistrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department Cit y of Rancho Pa los Verdes 310-544 -5267 katiel@rpvca.gov 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: BRIAN WHITIEN <brianwhitten1965@msn.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:20PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov > Subject: FYI ... https://legal-planet.org/20 20/08/3 1/red-p aint-will -curb -public-acc ess -in -palos -verdes-n ature-pre serve -one- of-los-angel es-countys -most-significant-open -spaces/ Red Paint Will Curb Public Ac cess to Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, One of Los Angeles County's Mo st Significant Open Space s -Legal Planet The City of Rancho Palos Verdes took steps this month to limit public access to a popular portion of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, an open space rivaled in size and beauty in Los Angeles County only by Griffith Park, the Santa Monica Mountains, and Angeles National Forest. leqal-planet.or g 3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Ms . Weissman, Katie Lozano Tuesday, September 1, 2020 2 :56 PM weissman .rita@gmail.com CC; CityCierk RE: Crenshaw Parking Restrictions at Portuguese Bend Preserve The action the City Council took on August 18, 2020 was very specific to temporarily prohibiting parking for 60-days on a stretch of road (Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd.) that has been problematic over the past ten years, while staff brings a solution forth to restore parking in a safer, responsible, and manageable way to this area with minimal impacts to surrounding properties . This stretch of road has been problematic, because it serves as the parking and access area to the City's most popular Reserve (the Portuguese Bend Reserve) as well as the Filiorum Reserve and Del Cerro Park. This stretch of road sees more than 240,000 visitors annually, and as a parking and staging area, was never designed to handle this level of use nor was this envisioned at the time the Preserve was being created. Traffic impacts on this stretch of road are exacerbated because it dead ends in a residential neighborhood with no designated U-turn mechanism. Use has increased substantially over the past 10 years, largely due to social media, and more recently, increases in trail use experienced throughout LA County since LA County Health Department trail closures were relaxed in May. In light of the Council's motion, public parking remains available for the Portuguese Bend and Filiorum Reserves on Crenshaw Blvd. north of Crest Rd., and at the other 10 Reserve properties throughout the City, many of which connect to the Portuguese Bend Reserve. In fact, the City is recommending the public try Alta Vicente Reserve (located at 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.) as an alternative hiking location because of its ample parking near trailheads, public restrooms, interesting habitat restoration areas, and proximity to adjacent reserves and the City's California Coastal Trail. This Reserve also provides a connection to three other Reserves for the ambitious hiker . Additional actions taken by the City Council on August 181h included a social media campaign to educate the public on appropriate Preserve use and to encourage visitation where parking and amenities (such as restrooms) exist, and looking at parking for the 1 ,400-acre Preserve in a holistic way. The City is committed to transparency especially when it comes to Preserve operations and regularly publishes information on Preserve operations and policies . The topic of parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve and upcoming City Council agenda item was discussed at the July 15, 2020 Preserve Public Forum. This is a quarterly public meeting held by the City to increase transparency and solicit public feedback on Preserve operations. Information on the August 18th and September 1st agenda items was also sent out through a combination of the City's Preserve listserv group and Breaking News listserv group on the following dates: 8/11/20, 8/17/20, and 8/26/20 to notify the public and solicit feedback, as well as social media. Please find links below to attend a Preserve Public Forum or sign up for the City's listserv notifications . http://www.rpvca.gov/705/Quarterly-Public-Forum -Meetings http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx e. Please feel free to reach out to me directly if I can provide additional information. The City works hard to keep our open space areas open to the public while protecting its natural resources. However, the specific actions City Council took on August 181h, is temporary for 60 days, and the City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider more information at its October 20 meeting . Moreover, at the meeting, the City Council specifically placed a timeline on the parking prohibition to emphasize the importance of finding a solution quickly that will restore parking in a safer and more functional way to this area . Please find a link to all 12 Reserves that form the 1 ,400-acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve below . http://www.rpvca.gov/1148/Nature-Reserve-lnformation-Traii-Maps Thank you, Katie Lozano Senior Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5267 katiel@rpvca.gov 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: Rita Weissman <weissman.rita@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:27 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov > Subject: Crenshaw Parking Restrictions at Portuguese Bend Preserve I am greatly dismayed that this exclusionary and discriminatory parking restriction is being proposed on Crenshaw, south of Crest, for the Portuguese Bend Reserve. Further, this has been instigated within the past two weeks with input only from local residents. I feel this action is unjust and hostile to outsiders, seniors, and families. I implore you to seek a more equitable solution, one made with input from more diverse voices, more time to develop and explore options, and with consideration of allowing others to enjoy nature and the beauty of this reserve. Rita Weissman A weekly, 72 yearold hiker at the reserve for the past 4 years Torrance 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, September 1, 2020 7:56 AM CityCierk FW: No to red curb From: Noah Aldonas <noah.aldonas@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 9:14PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: No to red curb Hi, I'm writing as a concerned Angeleno. I'm a big fan of Portuguese Bend and love going to hike there. I'm very concerned about the proposals to add more red curb paint to the area. This area has an important role facilitating healthy outdoor spaces and exercise and this will make that more difficult. Don't add more red curb to the area. Thanks, Noah Noah Aldonas UCLA Anderson School of Management '21 Northwestern University '13 r From: Sent: To: Subject: Cheri Bailiff Monday, August 31, 2020 5:41 PM CityCierk Fw: Del Cerro parking -Late Correspondence From: gerard melling <gpmelling@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 5:03 PM To: PublicWorks Cc: Daniel Melling Subject: Re: Del Cerro parking https:/ /I ega 1-pla net.org/2020/08/31/red-pa i nt-wi 11-cu rb-pu blic-access-i n-pa los-verdes-nature-preserve-one-of-los- a ngeles-cou ntys-most-sign ifica nt -open-spaces/ DearRPV I would like to add to my prior email by attaching this UCLA link by my son -a long term Del Cerro user too-which sets out the case succinctly. Can you please draw this to the attention of the council Gerard Melling Sent from my iPhone >On Aug 27, 2020, at 8:25 PM, gerard melling <gpmelling@yahoo.com> wrote: > >As a 20 year resident of RPV, frequent user of the trails near Del Cerro Park, and payer of a big property tax bill, with my friends, I am appalled to learn about the upcoming parking prohibition. The parking on Crenshaw, south of Crest Road, is currently the only non-permit parking available proximate to the park and trails. Rather than continuing to reduce access to public space, we should explore ways to INCREASE parking, such as replacing inefficient parallel parking with "head in" spots on the wide shoulder and adding spaces in the park by reducing some of the thirsty lawn area. Also, in my experience, the spaces reserved for residents in the park are majority unused on weekdays and not full even on busy weekends. > > It is our responsibility to allow access to the public space within our community and there is ample space for parking and shared use. When choosing to live in an area near public lands, some traffic and congestion must be expected. It's not a private fiefdom. Particularly in these times, we should be looking for solutions that welcome rather than discourage visitors to our outdoor spaces. >Could we please have some action to redress this situation? > >Gerard Melling > 26600 Menominee place > Rpv > >Sent from my iPhone From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Origi na I Message----- Cheri Bailiff Tuesday, September 1, 2020 8:18AM CityCierk FW: Parking at Del Cerro -Late Correspondence From: Laurie Smith <macmillansmith@aol.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 9:19 PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Parking at Del Cerro Laurie >On Aug 28, 2020, at 8:36AM, Laurie Smith <vnlsmith@icloud.com> wrote: > > > Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, > >I am writing in response to the temporary parking prohibition near Del Cerro Park. > >As a 40-year resident of PVE and frequent user of the trails near Del Cerro Park, I am appalled to learn about the upcoming parking prohibition. The parking on Crenshaw, south of Crest Road, is currently the only non-permit parking available proximate to the park and trails. Rather than continuing to reduce access to public space, we should explore ways to INCREASE parking, such as replacing inefficient parallel parking with "head in" spots on the wide shoulder and adding spaces in the park by reducing some of the thirsty lawn area. Also, in my experience, the spaces reserved for residents in the park are majority unused on weekdays and not full even on busy weekends. > > It is our responsibility to allow access to the public space within our community and there is ample space for parking and shared use. When choosing to live in an area near public lands, some traffic and congestion are a given. Caveat Emptor. I live on PVDN so should I try to curb parking on "my" street because it's inconvenient for me at times? Particularly in these times, we should be looking for solutions that welcome rather than discourage visitors to our outdoor spaces. > > Sincerely, > >Laurie Smith t. From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Original Message----- Cheri Bailiff Tuesday, September 1, 2020 8:19AM CityCierk FW: Parking at Del Cerro and tomorrow nights city council_ Late Correspondence From: Laurie Smith <macmillansmith@aol.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 9:31PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Parking at Del Cerro and tomorrow nights city council I have been a resident in the area for 40 years and was involved with the PV Land Conservancy, including they time in which the land was acquired. And NONE OF YOU WERE AROUND WHEN THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED, SO YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHO PAID FOR IT. It was paid for w/state & county propositions to authorize the sale of bonds for open space preservation with public access. State & county funds, not RPV funds. With the spirit that it was for all, otherwise why wd the state & county contribute. The reason that the state & county paid for the land is be it was to become a benefit to the state and county, not to a small handful of locals. Taxpayers way outside of RPV agreed to pay for it w/understanding that it was not just for RPV. It is NOT OK for a few elite residents who are a littler inconvenienced to deny access to the people this space was meant for. Laurie Smith Laurie From: Sent: To: Subject: Cheri Bailiff Tuesday, September 1, 2020 8:36 AM CityCierk FW: Important artic le -Late Correspondence From: Laurie Smith <macmi llan sm ith@ao l.com > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 9:48 PM To: Laurie Smith <Macmillansmith@aol.com> Cc: PublicWorks <Pub licWorks@rpvca .gov> Subject: Important article https://legal-planet.org/2020/08 /31 /red-paint-will-curb-public-access-in-palos-verdes -nature-preserve-one-of- los-angeles-countys-most -significant -open-spaces From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 2:55PM CityCierk Subject: FW: Public Input for 9/1 Meeting LC -----Original Message----- From: Judy Beckett <judyskis@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 2:52PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Public Input for 9/1 Meeting Dear Committee Members I am unhappy. Hello. My name is Judy Beckett and I am responding as a non-resident who has enjoyed hiking the Del Cero-PVPLC for many years. My husband is 79 and I am 75. We need a place to park so we can continue to enjoy this wonderful preserve. We beg you to please reconsider taking away our ability to park at the end of Crenshaw. The red painted curb is intolerable. It is our beliefthat your meeting on August 18 was done without consideration of us and many others. I believe that with a re-examination of what you are proposing, you will see that it is in the interest of a few .... instead of what is best for many. Respectively submitted, Judy Beckett Hermosa Beach 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late carr -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, September 1, 2020 3:29 PM CityCierk FW: Del Cerro parking restrictions From: Marian UK Mobile <pvmellings@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 3:28PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Del Cerro parking restrictions Hello Council Members I understand that you are holding a meeting today to discuss the parking restrictions near Del Cerro park, which will severely limit access to the public Nature Preserve that was fought for so valiantly by the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy for ALL to enjoy. That a few homeowners in the area could have managed to persuade the Council to block access to a public recreation area is inconceivable, and is an example of NIMBYism at its very worst. By painting the curbs red, and denying safe parking in the area means that even RPV residents like myself will be unable to visit, let alone the non-local visitors who are absolutely entitled to access this beautiful space. During this pandemic, it seems especially cruel to make it difficult, or even impossible to access open spaces, and your decision would seem to fly in the face of what this unique piece of land was acquired for. I am appalled at the selfishness of these homeowners, and would urge you to consider a fairer solution. Thank you, Mary Melling 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, September 1, 2020 2:14 PM CityCierk FW: Crenshaw Parking Restrictions at Portuguese Bend Preserve From: Rita Weissman <weissman.rita@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:27PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Crenshaw Parking Restrictions at Portuguese Bend Preserve I am greatly dismayed that this exclusionary and discriminatory parking restriction is being proposed on Crenshaw, south of Crest, for the Portuguese Bend Reserve. Further, this has been instigated within the past two weeks with input only from local residents. I feel this action is unjust and hostile to outsiders, seniors, and families. I implore you to seek a more equitable solution, one made with input from more diverse voices, more time to develop and explore options, and with consideration of allowing others to enjoy nature and the beauty of this reserve. Rita Weissman A weekly, 72 yearold hiker at the reserve for the past 4 years Torrance 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Late carr Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, September 1, 2020 12:58 PM CityCierk FW: New NDA for Item 2 4017-E (Part 1 of 1).pdf; Form 14-769 CCA-NDA Redlined Version Advice 4017-E.pdf; Form 14-769.pdf From: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 12:54 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: New NDA for Item 2 Good Afternoon Mayor and Councilmembers, Regarding tonight's Clean Power Alliance item, Staff has learned that a few days ago, the CPUC approved a new SCE non- disclosure agreement form for CCAs requesting customer usage data. SCE had requested changes to the NDA form in June 2019. The new form changes the timespan of shared data from 12 months to 36 months, and clarifies that customer summary bills are considered confidential, and that aggregate data that meets the CPUC's 15/15 Rule is not. The NDA is non-negotiable. Here is the new NDA form, a red lined version, and an explanation of the revisions sought by SCE. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the new NDA and still has the same concerns it did with the previous form. Thank you, 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 mbarnes@rpvca.gov 1 !In £[)!SON INTERNATIO N Al.,. Compo n) ADVICE 4017 -E (U 338-E) Gary A. Stern, Ph.D. Managing Director, State Regulatory Operations June 14 , 2019 PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENERGY DIVISION SUBJECT: Modification of Form 14-769, Community Choice Aggregation Non-Disclosure Agreement Southern California Edison Company (SCE) hereby submits the following changes to its tariffs. The revised tariff sheets are listed on Attachment A hereto . PURPOSE The purpose of this advice letter is to modify Form 14-769, Community Choice Aggregator Non -Disclosure Agreement, (CCA-NDA}, to protect all customer information shared with a Community Choice Aggregator (CCA) under this agreement. BACKGROUND In 2002, Assembly Bill 117 authorized the creation of Community Choice Aggregation. Public Utilities (PU) Code Sections 331.1 , 366 .2 , and 381.1 enable cities and/or counties to implement a Community Choice Aggregation Service (CCA Service) program , which allows communities to offer electricity procurement service to electric customers within their political boundaries. In 2006 , SCE established Rule 23 , Community Choice Aggregation.lCurrently , six CCAs have been formed in SCE's service territory, and SCE has received several implementation plans from potential CCAs that are planning to launch CCAs in the near future . Based on the feedback from the existing and potential future CCAs, SCE has identified a need to modify its current Form 14-769 to clarify that all confidential data shared with the CCAs, including all historical data and information in the summary bills , is pursuant to the CCA-NDA. Therefore , SCE is submitting this advice letter to modify its Form 14-769 to ensure all data shared with its CCAs are protected appropriately by its CCA-NDA. 1 SCE's Advice 1965 and Advice 1965-E-A. P 0 Box 800 8631 Rush Street Rosemead, California 91770 (626)302-9645 Fax(626)302-6396 ADVICE 4017-E (U 338-E) DISCUSSION -2-June 14, 2019 Currently, SCE's CCA-NDA extends the data sharing protections to CCAs investigating, pursuing, or implementing CCA Service. Although SCE interprets "implementing" as ongoing implementation, SCE has clarified that the CCA-NDA also applies to information shared with the CCAs pursuant to the NDA during the administration of the CCA Service as well. In addition, SCE's CCA NDA may be read to limit SCE's sharing of data to twelve (12) prior months. However, both current and potential CCAs have indicated that they require at least two additional years of data to assist them with forming and implementing the CCAs, including for use in various studies and analyses. Given these requests, SCE has agreed to provide up to a maximum of 36-months of historical data, in 12-month increments, to the CCAs if requested for this purpose. Therefore, SCE is proposing to remove the reference of the 12-month limitation from its CCA-NDA to ensure all historical data, and any other confidential data, shared with the current and potential CCAs are protected by SCE's CCA-NDA. Both current and potential CCAs have requested copies of their customers' "summary bills." These "summary bills" aggregate all of a customer's accounts, including accounts at locations that may be served by different Load Serving Entities (LSE). For example, a large retail chain may only receive one summary bill containing the billing information for 11 stores in 8 different CCA territories, 2 stores on Direct Access (DA) Service, and 15 stores served on SCE's Bundled Service. Thus, when a CCA receives its own customer's summary bill, it may also receive data related to that customer's accounts that are not in its service territory. However, SCE's current CCA Service Agreement does not explicitly extend data protections to cover the detailed customer billing information for customer accounts outside the CCA's territory or receiving LSE services from other providers. Given this situation, SCE has determined that it is prudent to update the current CCA Non-Disclosure Agreement to make it clear that all information included in these "summary bills" are fully protected as Confidential Information. Making this change to the CCA NDA will permit SCE to fulfill the CCAs' request for its customers' bills, accommodate the customer's wish to continue to receive a single summary bill, and protect the customers' confidential data. In this advice letter, SCE is proposing to update its Form 14-769 to clarify the scope of data protected pursuant to the CCA-NDA and to make additional non-substantive clarification edits to remove any potential ambiguity in Form 14-769. PROPOSED TARIFF CHANGES Form 14-769, Community Choice Aggregator Non-Disclosure Agreement 1. Modify the definition of "Confidential Information" to clarify that confidential information includes any confidential or proprietary information provided to a CCA or potential CCA for the CCA to investigate, pursue, implement, and/or administer CCA Services. ADVICE 4017-E (U 338-E) -3-June 14, 2019 2. Change the reference of "customer service account number" to "unique customer identifier," and also update "name on service account" to "customer name" to better describe these data elements. 3. Remove the reference of 12 months of historical data from the definition of "Confidential Information" to reflect that all confidential information provided, no matter what the time period, shall be confidential information. 4. Clarify that the CCA-NDA applies to CCA administration after the CCA becomes operational, as well as investigation, pursuit, and implementation, of CCA Services. 5. Include in the definition of "Confidential Information" current and historical summary bills for services provided by SCE, other electric service providers, or other CCAs. 6. Make explicit that materials derived from Confidential Information that sufficiently aggregate such Confidential Information in compliance with the 15/15 Rule, set forth in Schedule CCA-INFO, are not "Confidential Information." SCE has always interpreted the NDA in this manner, but at least one CCA has expressed concern that the current NDA is not clear. 7. Replace the reference of Assembly Bill No. 1890 with PU Code Section 365.1 in #5 on page 4. 8. Add back the reference to "Attachment B" of CPUC Decision No. 12-08-045 that was inadvertently removed in the revision submitted in Advice 3243-E. 9. Add a check box for CCA option in the signature block. No cost information is required for this advice letter. This advice letter will not increase any rate or charge, cause the withdrawal of service, or conflict with any other schedule or rule. TIER DESIGNATION Pursuant to General Order (GO) 96-B, Energy Industry Rule 5.2, this advice letter is submitted with a Tier 2 designation. EFFECTIVE DATE This advice letter will become effective on July 14, 2019, the 30th calendar day after the date submitted. ADVICE 4017 -E (U 338 -E) NOTICE -4 -June 14, 2019 Anyone wishing to protest this advice letter may do so by letter via U.S. Mail, facsimile , or electronically , any of which must be received no later than 20 days after the date of this advice letter. Protests should be submitted to: CPUC , Energy Division Attention: Tariff Unit 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, California 94102 E-mail: EDTariffUnit@cpuc.ca .gov Copies should also be mailed to the attention of the Director, Energy Division , Room 4004 (same address above). In addition , protests and all other correspondence regarding this advice letter should also be sent by letter and transmitted via facsimile or electronically to the attention of: Gary A. Stern, Ph.D . Managing Director, State Regulatory Operations Southern California Edison Company 8631 Rush Street Rosemead , California 91770 Telephone : (626) 302-9645 Facsimile: (626) 302-6396 E-mail : AdviceTariffManager@sce.com Laura Genao Managing Director, State Regulatory Affairs c/o Karyn Gansecki Southern California Edison Company 601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2030 San Francisco , California 94102 Facsimile: (415) 929-5544 E-mail : Karvn .Gansecki@sce.com There are no restrictions on who may file a protest, but the protest shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which it is based and must be received by the deadline shown above. In accordance with General Rule 4 of GO 96-B, SCE is serving copies of this advice letter to the interested parties shown on the attached GO 96-B, R.12-06 -013 , R.03 -10-003, R.17-06 -026, R.16-02-007 , and R.17-09 -020 service lists . Additionally , SCE is also serving copies of this advice letter to the entities that have submitted a correctly executed Form 14-770, Community Choice Aggregator Service Declaration, to SCE. Address change requests to the GO 96 -B service list should be directed by electronic mail to AdviceTariffManager@sce.com or at (626) 302 -4039. For changes to ADVICE 4017-E (U 338-E) -5 -June 14 , 2019 all other serv ice lists, please contact the Commission 's Process Office at (415) 703-2021 or by e lectron ic mail at Process Office@cpuc.ca .gov . Further, in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 491, notice to the public is hereby given by submission and keeping the advice letter at SCE 's corporate headquarters. To view other SCE adv ic e letters submitted with the Comm ission, log on to SCE's web site at https://www.sce.com/wps/portal/home/regulatorv/advice-letters . For questions, please contact Amy Liu at (626) 302-4019 or by e le ctron ic mail at Amy .Liu@sce.com GAS :a l:jm Enclosures Southern California Edison Company /s/ Gary A. Stern, Ph.D. Gary A. Stern , Ph.D. California Public Utilities Commission MUST BE COMPLETED BY UTILITY (Attach additional pages as needed) Co mpany name /C PUC Utility No.: Southern Ca lifornia E dison Companv (U 338-E) Utility type: [{] ELC D GAS 0 HEAT 0 WATER Contact Person: Darrah Morgan Phone#: (626) 302-2086 0 PLC E-mail: Advice TariffManager@sce.com E-mail Disposition Notice to: AdviceTariffManae:er@sce.com EXPLANATION OF UTILIT Y TYPE ELC = Electric PLC = Pipeline GAS= Gas HEAT= Heat Advice Letter (AL) #: 401 7-E WATER = Water (Date Submitted I Received Stamp by CPUCI Tier Designation : 2 Subject of AL: Modification of Form 14-7 69 , Community Choice Aggregation Non-Disclosure Agreement Keyword s (choose from CPUC listing): Compliance, Form AL Type : D Monthly 0 Quart erly D Annual [{] One-Tim eD Other: If AL submitted in compliance with a Comm issio n order, indicate relevant Decision/Resolution #: Does AL replace a withdrawn or rejected AL? If so, identify the prior AL: Su mmarize differences between the ALand the prior withdrawn or rejected AL: Co nfidential treatment requested ? O Yes [{] No If yes, specification of confidentia l information : Confidentia l information wi ll be made available to appropriate parties who execute a nondisclosure agreement . Name and co nta c t information to request nondisclosure agreement/ access to confidentia l information: Reso lution required? D Yes [{] No Requested effective date: 7/14 /19 Estimated sys tem annual revenue effect (%): Estimated sys t em average rate effec t (%): No. of tariff sheets: -3- When rates are affected by AL, include attachment in A L showing average rate effects on customer classes (residential, small commercial, large C/1, agri c ultural , lighting). Tariff schedules affected: F 14 769 d T 1 1 f c · "OflTl -an a) e o on tents Se rvice affected and changes proposed 1 Pending advice letters that revise the same tariff sheets: Non e ~ 1Discuss in AL if more space is needed. Protests and all other correspondence regarding this AL are due no later than 20 days after the date of this submittal, unless otherwise authorized by the Commission, and shall be sent to: CPUC. Energy Division A tt e ntion : Tariff Unit 505 Van Ness A venue San Francisco, CA 94102 Email: EDToriffUnit @cpuc.ca.gov Name: Garv A. Stern, Ph .D. Title: Managing Director, State Regulatory Operations Utilit y Na m e : South ern Cali fornia E dison Compan y Address: 8631 Rush Street C it y: Rosemead Sta t e: Ca liforni a Zip: 91770 Telephone (xxx) xxx-xxxx: (626) 302-9645 Facsimile (xxx ) xxx-xxxx: (626 ) 302-6396 Email: advicetariffm.anager(ci}sce.com Name: La ura Genao c /o Karr n G ansecki Titl e: IV!anaging Director, State Regulatory Affairs Utilit y Name: Southern Ca lifornia Edison Compam• Add ress: 601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2030 C ity: San Francisco St a t e: Ca lifornia Zip: 94102 Telephone (xxx) xxx-xxxx: (4 15) 929 -55 15 Facsim il e (xxx) xxx-xxxx: ( 415 ) 929-5544 Email : karyn.ganseckifa}sce.com ENERGY Adv ice Le tter Keywo rds Affiliate Direc t Access Preliminary S tatem ent Agr ee ments Disco nnect Service Procurement Agriculture ECAC I E n ergy Cos t _,\djus tmen t Qualifying Fa ci li ty AYo ided Cos t EOR I E nhanced Oil Recm'ery Reb ates Ba lancing .r\ccount Energy Charge Refund s Ba se line E n ergy Effic iency Reliability Bilingua l Es tabli sh Se rvice Re -IYIAT I Bi o-lYL'\T Billin gs Expand Se r v ice Area Re ve nue A ll oca ti on Bioenergy Forms Rule 2 1 Brokerage Fees Francluse Fee I Use r Tax Rul es CARE G.O. 13 1-D Section 851 CP uC Reimbursement Fee GRC I General Rate Case Self Gen era tion Capa city Hazardous \Xlaste Service Area Map Cogeneration Increase Rates Se r v ice Outage Compliance Interruptible Ser vice Solar Conditions of Se n 'ice I nterutility Transportation Standbv Se rv ice Connec tion LIEE I L ow-Inco m e Energy Efficiency S to ra ge Con se rvation L IJL\. I Low-I ncome Rate payer Assis tance Street Lights Consolidate Tariffs Late Paym ent Ch arge Surcharges Contracts Lin e Extensions Tariffs Core Memorandum Account Taxes Cr e dit Metered E n ergy E fficienc y Text Changes Curtaila bl e SerYic e Metering Tran s form er Customer C harge Mobile Home P arks Transition Cos t Cus tomer Owned Generatio n Nam e Change Tran smi ss io n Lines D ecreas e Rates Non-Core Tran sportatio n Electrification Demand Charge Non -firm Ser vice Contra cts Tran sportatio n Rates Demand Side Fund Nuclear undergrounding Demand Side J\IIan agement Oil Pipelin es Volta ge Discount Demand Side Re sp o n se PBR I P erforman ce Ba se d Ratemakin g \Xiind Power D e posits Portfolio \Xlithdraw al o f Se rvice D e p re ciation Power Lin es Public Utilities Commission 4017 -E Cal. P U.C. Sheet No. Title of Sheet Revised 67481-E Form 14-769 Revised 67482-E Table of Contents Revised 67483-E Table of Contents Attachment A Cancelling Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. Revised 61464-E Revised 67 466-E Revised 67 4 70-E ~:;{!:;~!~'~ ">OUliHil"-( llli~OIII'>,'f,\ ~EDISON Southern California Edison Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 67481-E Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 61464-E Sheet 1 COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATOR NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT (To be inserted by utility) Advice 4017-E ~~~----------- Decision 103 Form 14-769 Issued by Kevin Payne Chief Executive Officer (To be inserted by Cal. PUC) Date Filed Jun 14, 2019 Effective Resolution SOUTHEI~N CALIFOI~NIA ' EDISON An ED! SOli' INT/cRN!tT/O!vAL Company COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATOR NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT This Non-Disclosure Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into by and between Southern California Edison Company (SCE) ("Utility") and , a D City, D County, or D Joint Powers Authority who is (Check only one option) D a Community Choice Aggregator ("CCA"); or 0 an eligible entity under California Public Utilities Code ("PU Code") Section 331.1 who is actively investigating delivery of electric service to customers located within the geographic territory of the CCA This Agreement is effective as of _____________ . ("Effective Date"); This Agreement is executed pursuant to California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") Order Instituted Rulemaking ("OIR") 03-10-003, PU Code Section 366.2 et seq., and applicable Utility tariffs (as modified hereafter from time to time). As used herein the Utility and CCA may each be referred to individually as a "Party" and collectively as "Parties." The CPUC has determined that a CCA or an eligible entity actively investigating (C) becoming a CCA (collectively, "CCAs") may obtain specified confidential customer (C) information from Utility pursuant to Tariff Schedules Community Choice Aggregation - Information Fees ("CCA-INFO") and Community Choice Aggregation -Service Fees ("CCA- SF") (as modified hereafter from time to time) as a CCA, as defined by PU Code Section 331.1, solely in order to investigate, pursue, implement and/or administer Community Choice (C) Aggregation Services pursuant to PU Code Section 366.2, et seq. or solely to administer energy efficiency programs in the CCA's geographic territory upon CPUC authorization pursuant to PU Code Section 381.1 ("CCA Service"). The provisions of this Agreement and Schedules CCA-INFO and CCA-SF govern the disclosure of Utility's confidential customer information to CCA ("Disclosure Provisions"). Form 14-769 Page 1 7/2019 The Parties hereby mutually agree that: 1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, current proprietary and confidential information of Utility regarding customers of Utility ("Utility Customers") may be disclosed to CCA from time to time in connection herewith as provided by the Disclosure Provisions and solely for the purpose of CCA Service. Such disclosure is subject to the following legal continuing representations and warranties by CCA: Form 14-769 Page 2 (a) CCA represents and warrants that, pursuant to PU Code Section 331.1, (1) it is either (i) a city, county, or other entity as defined in PU Code Section 331.1 whose governing board has elected to combine the loads of its residents, businesses, and municipal facilities in a community wide electricity buyers, or (ii) a city, county, or other entity as defined in PU Code Section 331.1 that intends to actively investigate or pursue delivery of electric service to customers located within the geographic territory of the CCA; and (2) that to investigate, pursue or implement CCA Service, it requires certain Confidential Information, as defined in Section 2, below; (b) CCA represents and warrants that it has all necessary authority to enter into this Agreement, and that it is a binding enforceable Agreement according to its terms; (c) CCA represents and warrants that the authorized representative(s) executing this Agreement is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the CCA; (d) CCA confirms its understanding that the information of Utility Customers is of a highly sensitive confidential and proprietary nature, and that such information will be used as contemplated under the Disclosure Provisions solely for the purposes of investigating, pursuing, implementing, and/or administering CCA Service, and that any other use of the information may permit Utility to suspend providing further information hereunder; and 7/2019 (T)(C) (C) (T) Form 14-769 Page 3 (e) CCA represents and warrants that it will implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information, to protect the Confidential Information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure, and prohibits the use of the data for a secondary commercial purpose not related to CCA Service or energy efficiency purposes without the customer's prior consent to that use. 2. Any confidential and/or proprietary information disclosed to CCA in (T) connection with the CCA's investigating, pursuing, implementing, and/or (C) administering CCA Service, without limitation, the following information about 1 Utility Customers: (i) unique customer identifier, customer name, service I address with zip code, mailing address with zip code, email address, (C) telephone number, meter number, monthly kWh usage, monthly maximum demand where available, electrical or gas consumption data as defined in PU Code Section 8380, copies of customer bills, other data detailing electricity or (N) needs and patterns of usage, Baseline Zone, CARE participation, End Use Code (Heat Source) Service Voltage, Medical Baseline, Meter Cycle, Bill Cycle, Level Pay Plan and/or other plans, Horse Power Load and Number of Units and monthly rate schedule for all accounts within the CCA's geographic territory; and (ii) summary bills for service provided by SCE, other electric (N) service providers, or other CCAs (collectively, "Confidential Information"). I Upon request of the CCA, SCE will provide customer-specific Confidential I Information as requested by the CCA in accordance with SCE's Schedule I CCA-SF and Schedule CCA-INFO. Confidential Information shall also include (N) specifically any copies, drafts, revisions, analyses, summaries, extracts, memoranda, reports and other materials prepared by CCA or its representatives that are derived from or based on Confidential Information disclosed by Utility, regardless of the form of media in which it is prepared, recorded or retained. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Confidential Information (N) shall not include materials derived from or based on Confidential Information if I any such Confidential Information has been aggregated sufficiently to comply 1 with the 15/15 Rule, set forth in Special Condition 1 of SCE's Schedule CCA-I INFO and CPUC Decision 97-10-031. (N) 3. Except for electric usage information and bills provided to CCA pursuant to (N) this Agreement, Confidential Information does not include information that CCA proves (a) was properly in the possession of CCA at the time of disclosure; (b) is or becomes publicly known through no fault of CCA, its employees or representatives; or (c) was independently developed by CCA, its employees or representatives without access to any Confidential Information. 4. From the Effective Date, no portion of the Confidential Information may be disclosed, disseminated or appropriated by CCA, or used for any purpose other than for CCA Service as permitted under this Agreement and the Disclosure Provisions. 7/2019 Form 14-769 Page 4 5. CCA shall, at all times and in perpetuity, keep the Confidential Information in the strictest confidence and shall take all reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized or improper disclosure or use of Confidential Information. CCA shall implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information, to protect the Confidential Information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure and prohibits the use of the data for a secondary commercial purpose not related to CCA Service. Specifically, CCA shall restrict access to Confidential Information, and to materials prepared in connection therewith, to those employees or representatives of CCA who have a "need to know" such Confidential Information in the course of their duties with respect to the CCA Service and who agree to be bound by the nondisclosure and confidentiality obligations of this Agreement, provided, however, that, an Energy Service Provider, agent, or any other entity, including entities that provide both direct access (PU Code Section 365.1) and CCA Service shall limit their utilization (T) of the information provided to the purposes for which it has been provided and shall not utilize such information, directly or indirectly, in providing other services, including but not limited to Direct Access services, in order to effectuate the obligations of this Agreement. Prior to disclosing any Confidential Information to its employees or representatives, CCA shall require such employees or representatives to whom Confidential Information is to be disclosed to review this Agreement and to agree in writing to be bound by the terms of this Agreement by signing the "Non-Disclosure Agreement for CCA Employees or Representatives" form attached as Exhibit A hereto. CCA shall provide Utility with copies of the signed Exhibit A forms at Utility request. CCA shall also provide Utility with a list of the names, titles, and addresses for all persons or entities to which Confidential Information is disclosed in connection herewith ("Disclosure List"). This Disclosure List shall be updated by CCA on a regular basis, and will be provided to Utility once each quarter at a minimum. 6. CCA shall be liable for the actions of, or any disclosure or use by, its employees or representatives contrary to this Agreement; however, such liability shall not limit or prevent any actions by Utility directly against such employees or representatives for improper disclosure and/or use. In no event shall CCA or its employees or representatives take any actions related to Confidential Information that are inconsistent with holding Confidential Information in strict confidence. CCA shall immediately notify Utility in writing if it becomes aware of the possibility of any misuse or misappropriation of the Confidential Information by CCA or any of its employees or representatives. However, nothing in this Agreement shall obligate Utility to monitor or enforce CCA's compliance with the terms of this Agreement. 7/2019 Form 14-769 Page 5 7. CCA shall comply with the consumer protections and requirements concerning subsequent disclosure and use of Confidential Information pursuant to Attachment B of CPUC Decision No. 12-08-045, further explained in SCE's (T) Tariff Rule 25. (T) 8. CCA acknowledges that disclosure or misappropriation of any Confidential Information could cause irreparable harm to Utility and/or Utility Customers, the amount of which may be difficult to assess. Accordingly, CCA hereby confirms that Utility shall be entitled to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction or the CPUC for an injunction, specific performance or such other relief (without posting bond) as may be appropriate in the event of improper disclosure or misuse of its Confidential Information by CCA or its employees or representatives. Such right shall, however, be construed to be in addition to any other remedies available to Utility, in law or equity. 9. In addition to all other remedies, CCA shall indemnify and hold harmless Utility, its affiliates, subsidiaries, parent company, officers, employees, or agents from and against and claims, actions, suits, liabilities, damages, losses, expenses and costs (including reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements) attributable to actions or non-actions of CCA and/or its employees and/or its representatives in connection with the use or disclosure of Confidential Information. 10. If, at any time, CCA ceases its investigation, pursuit, implementation, and/or (T) administration of community choice aggregation pursuant to PU Code Section (T) 366.2 et seq., CCA shall promptly return or destroy (with written notice to Utility itemizing the materials destroyed) all Confidential Information then in its possession at the request of Utility. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the nondisclosure obligations of this Agreement shall survive any termination of this Agreement. 11. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the successors and permitted assigns of the Parties hereto. This Agreement shall not be assigned, however, without the prior written consent of the non-assigning Party, which consent may be withheld due to the confidential nature of the information, data and materials covered. 12. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, communications, correspondence and representations, whether oral or written. This Agreement shall not be amended, modified or waived except by an instrument in writing, signed by both Parties, and, specifically, shall not be modified or waived by course of performance, course of dealing or usage of trade. Any waiver of a right under this Agreement shall be in writing, but no such writing shall be deemed a subsequent waiver of that right, or any other right or remedy. 7/2019 13. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference to its principles on conflicts of laws. 14. This Agreement shall, at all times, be subject to such changes or modifications by the CPUC as it may from time to time direct in the exercise of its jurisdiction. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the authorized representatives of the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SIGNATURE:------------- PRINT NAME:------------- TITLE:-------------- DATE: ____________________ __ ----------------[CCA name] SIGNATURE:------------- PRINT NAME: ____________ _ TITLE:----------------- DATE: ________________________ __ Form 14-769 Page 6 7/2019 EXHIBIT A NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT FOR CCA EMPLOYEES OR REPRESENTATIVES I,--------------' declare under penalty of perjury that (1) I am employed as ________ (title) at ________ _ ____________ (employer and address); and (2) I have personally reviewed the attached COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATOR NON- DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT as executed by 0 City, D County, D Joint Powers Authority, or D CCA (check only one) relating to disclosure and (N) use of Confidential Information (as defined therein) and I agree to be bound by its provisions. SIGNATURE:------------- PRINT NAME: _____________ _ TITLE:-------------- DATE: ______________ __ Form 14-769 Page 7 7/2019 ~1;~'"1 rors'o"N \l' I /J/.'()~ !o'.l//,'\ 1110\ \1 tul\'i'·"" Southern California Edison Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 67482-E Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 67466-E TABLE OF CONTENTS Sheet 1 Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. TITLE PAGE ........................................................................................................................... 11431-E TABLE OF CONTENTS -RATE SCHEDULES .... 67 482-67339-67340-67341-67342-67343-67344-E (T) ......................................................................................................... 67 467-67346-67 468-E TABLE OF CONTENTS-LIST OF CONTRACTS AND DEVIATIONS ................................... 66863-E TABLE OF CONTENTS-RULES ................................................................................. 67469-64043-E TABLE OF CONTENTS-INDEX OF COMMUNITIES, MAPS, BOUNDARY DESCRIPTIONS 62213-E TABLE OF CONTENTS-SAMPLE FORMS ................... 62213-64447-61576-65710-63318-61631-E ......................................................................................................... 67483-61971-63296-E (T) PRELIMINARY STATEMENT: A. Territory Served ......................................................................................................... 22909-E B. Description of Service ................................................................................................ 22909-E C. Procedure to Obtain Service ..................................................................................... 22909-E D. Establishment of Credit and Deposits ....................................................................... 22909-E E. General .......................................................................... 45178-45179-45180-53818-45182-E F. Symbols ..................................................................................................................... 45182-E G. Gross Revenue Sharing Mechanism ....... 26584-26585-26586-26587 -27195-27196-54092-E .................................................................................................. 51717-53819-27200-27201-E H. Baseline Service ........................................................... 52027-52028-52029-52030-52031-E I. Charge Ready Program Balancing Account ................................................... 6551 0-65511-E J. Not In Use ............................................................................................................................. -E K. Nuclear Decommissioning Adjustment Mechanism ........................................ 36582-57779-E L. Purchase Agreement Administrative Costs Balancing Account ........... 55207-51922-55208-E M. Income Tax Component of Contributions ....................................................... 58419-58420-E N. Memorandum Accounts .... 21344-65676-61164-58221-49492-61165-61166-61167 -53821-E ........ 50418-42841-61168-64869-64870-44950-44951-44952-44953-42849-42850-42851-E ........ 65677-65678-55623-61171-42856-61172-61173-52033-50419-55048-6117 4-42863-E ........ 42864-56204-56205-51235-45920-51236-61175-50209-42872-42873-50421-46539-E ........ 42876-42877-42878-42879-42880-42881-42882-54534-53371-56253-44959-42887 -E ........ 53321-53322-61176-52551-52552-49928-56235-56236-56237 -55144-55145-44029-E ........ 53016-57156-57157-51163-51164-51165-51166-51167 -51168-51169-51170-51171-E ................................ 51244-55806-56393-56394-56395-56396-56397 -56398-56399-58978E 0. California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) Adjustment Clause ................. 34705-41902-E .................................................................................................. 36472-38847-56788-67026-E P. Tree Mortality Non-Bypassable Charge Balancing Account. ........... 65929-65930-65931-E (Continued) (To be inserted by utility) Issued by (To be inserted by Cal. PUC) Advice 4017 -E ----------------Decision 104 Kevin Payne Chief Executive Officer Date Filed Jun 14,2019 Effective Resolution r;:::t~~{\\il SOUTm11"-(,,\UrOil"l·\ 1.;i...J EDISON Southern California Edison Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 67483-E Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 67470-E Form No. 14-756 14-768 14-769 14-770 14-793 14-794 14-795 14-796 14-797 14-930 14-954 14-955 14-961 14-459 14-653 14-730 14-731 14-732 14-742 14-743 14-744 14-745 14-750 14-755 14-773 14-788 14-909 14-910 14-911 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) SAMPLE FORMS (Continued) Statements (Continued) Direct Access/Community Choice Aggregation Sheet 19 Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. Direct Access Customer Relocation/Replacement Declaration .............................. 62766-E Commumty Cho1ce Aggregator (CCA) Serv1ce Agreement ................................... 47507-E Community Choice Aggregator Non-Disclosure Agreement. ................................. 67 481-E Commun1ty Cho1ce Aggregation Serv1ce Declaration ............................................ 49644-E Six-Month Advance Notice to Transfer a Non-Residential Account to Direct Access Service ...................................................................................................... 67 465-E Six-Month Advance Notice to Return to Bundled Portfolio Service (from Direct Access Service) .................................................................................. 55606-E Notice of Intent to Transfer to Direct Access Service (During the Open Enrollment Window April16, 2010 to June 30, 2010) ............................................................................. 47049-E Authorization To: Receive Customer Information or Act on a Customer's Behalf .. 48656-E Customer Assignment Notification ..................... ,. ................................................... 51663-E D1rect Access Customer Replacement Declarat1on ................................................ 51664-E Six-Month Advance Notice to Transfer to Community Choice Aggregation Service Outs1de of Automatic Enrollment. ............................................................................ 55607 -E Six-Month Advance Notice to Return to BPS (from CCA Service) ........................ 55608-E Self-Certification Affidavit of Generation Municipal Surcharge Exemption for State of California and Its Political Subdivisions ............................................ 61814-E Interconnection Agreements Momentary Parallel Generation Agreement ........................................................... 27758-E Virtual Net Metering for Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing and Solar on Multifamily Affordable Housmg Program Interconnection Agreement. ............................. 63569-E Back-Up Service Agreement Between Customer and Southern California Edison Company (SCE),. ..................... , ........................................................................... 53904-E Generat!ng Facll!tY Interconnection Agreement ................................................... 59895-E Generatmg Fac1l1ty Interconnection Appl1cat1on ................................................. 64041-E Generating Facility Interconnection Agreement (3rd Party Non-Exporting) ............ 59897-E Generating Facility Interconnection Agreement (3rd Party lnadvertent-~xporting) 59898-E Customer Generation Agreement ........................................................................... 50719-E ~i~~~r;t~ig ts~~~i~~~\~fg~na~~t~~~t~%reFea~~~; ~n~dE~~~gn;-~xft~~~·~i. anci. 'iilterco5n9n8:c~i~n Agree men~ .............................................................................................................. 50721-E Fuel Cell Electrical Generating Facility Net Energy Metering and Interconnection Agreement ............................................................................................................... 61236-E Generating Facility Interconnection Agreement for Combined Technologies ......... 61237-E Local Government Renewable Energy Self-Generation Bill Credit Transfer (RES-BCT) Interconnection Agreement ................................................................................... 59493-E Virtual Net Energy Metering for Multi-Tenant and Multi-Meter Properties Interconnection . Agreement ............................................................................................................ 58807 -E V1rtual Net Energy Metering for Multi-Tenant and Multi-Meter Properties Allocation Request Form ......................................................................................................... 58808-E lnterc.onnec~ion Agreement for An Existing Small-Generation Facility Interconnection to the D1stnbut1on System Under Ruler 21 ................................................................ 49042-E (Continued) (To be inserted by utility) Issued by (To be inserted by Cal. PUC) Advice 4017 -E ~~~------------ Decision 1904 Kevin Payne Chief Executive Officer Date Filed Jun 14, 2019 Effective Resolution (T) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON An EDISON l!\'TloRSATION.M Company COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATOR NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT This Non-Disclosure Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into by and between Southern California Edison Company (SCE) ("Utility") and , a D City, D County, or D Joint Powers Authority who is (Check only one option) D a Community Choice Aggregator ("CCA"); or 0 an eligible entity under California Public Utilities Code ("PU Code") Section 331.1 who is actively investigating delivery of electric service to customers located within the geographic territory of the CCA This Agreement is effective as of _____________ . ("Effective Date"); This Agreement is executed pursuant to California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") Order Instituted Rulemaking ("OIR") 03-10-003, PU Code Section 366.2 et seq., and applicable Utility tariffs (as modified hereafter from time to time). As used herein the Utility and CCA may each be referred to individually as a "Party" and collectively as "Parties." The CPUC has determined that_§_ CCA or an eligible entity actively investigating {Q becoming a CCA (collectively, "CCAs") may obtain specified confidential customer {Q information from Utility pursuant to Tariff Schedules Community Choice Aggregation - Information Fees ("CCA-INFO") and Community Choice Aggregation -Service Fees ("CCA- SF") (as modified hereafter from time to time) as a CCA, as defined by PU Code Section 331.1, solely in order to investigate, pursueJ.-Gf implement and/or administer Community {Q Choice Aggregation Services pursuant to PU Code Section 366.2, et seq. or solely to administer energy efficiency programs in the CCA's geographic territory upon CPUC authorization pursuant to PU Code Section 381.1 ("CCA Service"). The provisions of this Agreement and Schedules CCA-INFO and CCA-SF govern the disclosure of Utility's confidential customer information to CCA ("Disclosure Provisions"). Form 14-769 Page 1 ~l/201~+ The Parties hereby mutually agree that: 1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, current proprietary and confidential information of Utility regarding customers of Utility ("Utility Customers") may be disclosed to CCA from time to time in connection herewith as provided by the Disclosure Provisions and solely for the purpose of CCA Service. Such disclosure is subject to the following legal continuing representations and warranties by CCA: Form 14-769 Page 2 (a) CCA represents and warrants that, pursuant to PU Code Section 331.1, (1) it is either (i) a city, county, or other entity as defined in PU Code Section 331.1 whose governing board has elected to combine the loads of its residents, businesses, and municipal facilities in a community wide electricity buyers, or (ii) a city, county, or other entity as defined in PU Code Section 331.1 that intends to actively investigate or pursue delivery of electric service to customers located within the geographic territory of the CCA; and (2) that to investigate, pursue or implement CCA Service, it requires certain Confidential Information, as defined in Section 2, below; (b) CCA represents and warrants that it has all necessary authority to enter into this Agreement, and that it is a binding enforceable Agreement according to its terms; (c) CCA represents and warrants that the authorized representative(s) executing this Agreement is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the CCA;--afl-G (d) CCA confirms its understanding that the information of Utility Customers is of a highly sensitive confidential and proprietary nature, and that such information will be used as contemplated under the Disclosure Provisions solely for the purposes of investigating, pursging~--Bf_-implementing, and/or administering CCA Service, and that any other use of the information may permit Utility to suspend providing further information hereunder; and7 @?.a/201~+ Form 14 -769 Page 3 (e) CCA represents and warrants that it will implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information , to protect the Confid ential Information from unauthorized access , destruction , use , modification , or disclosure , and prohibits the use of the data for a secondary commercial purpose not related to CCA Serv ic e or energy effic iency purposes without the customer's prior consent to that use . 2. +Ae_6_Qy confident ial and /or proprietary information disclosed to CCA in ill connection herewith may upon request include , with the CCA 's investigating , .(Q pursuing , implementing, and/or administering CCA Service, without limit ation , _j the following billing information about Utility Customers:_ Customer specific _j info rmation from the current billing periods as well as prior 12 months .(Q consisting of: service account numbe r(i) unique c ustomer identifier, customer name on service account , service address with zip code , mailing address with zip code , ema il address, telephone number, meter number, monthly kWh .(ill usage, monthly maximum demand where ava il ab le , electrical or gas consumption data as defined in PU Code Section 8380 , copies of customer bills. other data detailing electricity or needs and patterns of usage , Baseline Zone, CARE participation , End Use Code (Heat Source) Service Voltage , Medical Baseline , Meter Cyc le , Bill Cycle , Level Pay Plan and /or other plans, .(ill Horse Power Load and Number of Units and monthly rate schedu le for all _j accounts within the CCA's geographic territory ; and (ii) summary bills for _j service provided by SCE . other electric service providers. or other CCAs _j (collectively , "Confidential Information "). Upon request of the CCA, SCE will .(ill provide customer-specific Confidential Information as requested by the CCA in accordance with SCE 's Schedule CCA-SF and Schedule CCA -INFO . Confidential Information shall also include specifica lly any copies, drafts , revisions, analyses, summaries , extracts, memoranda , reports and other materials prepared by CCA or its representatives that are derived from or .(ill based on Confidentia l Information disclosed by Utility , regard le ss of the form _j of media in which it is prepared, recorded or retained . Notwithstanding the _j foregoing, Confident ial Information shall not include materials derived from or _j based on Confidential Information if any such Confidential Information has .(ill been aggregated sufficient ly to comply with the 15/15 Ru le, set forth in Special Condition 1 of SCE 's Schedule CCA -INFO and CPUC Decision 97 -10 -031 . .(ill 3. Except for electric usage information and bills provided to CCA pursuant to this Agreement, Confidential Information does not include information that CCA proves (a) was properly in the possession of CCA at the time of disclosure ; (b) is or becomes publicly known through no fault of CCA , its employees or representatives; or (c) was ind ependent ly developed by CCA, its emp loy ees or representatives without access to any Confidentia l Information . 4. From the Effect iv e Date , no portion of the Confident ial Inform ation may be disclosed, disseminated or appropriated by CCA , or used for any purpose other than for CCA Service as permitted under this Agreement and the Disclosure Provisions . Form 14-769 Page 4 5. CCA shall, at all times and in perpetuity, keep the Confidential Information in the strictest confidence and shall take all reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized or improper disclosure or use of Confidential Information. CCA shall implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information, to protect the Confidential Information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure and prohibits the use of the data for a secondary commercial purpose not related to CCA Service. -Specifically, CCA shall restrict access to Confidential Information, and to materials prepared in connection therewith, to those employees or representatives of CCA who have a "need to know" such Confidential Information in the course of their duties with respect to the CCA Service and who agree to be bound by the nondisclosure and confidentiality obligations of this Agreement, provided, however, that, an Energy Service Provider, agent, or any other entity, including entities that provide both direct access (PU Code Section 365.1 as codified in Assembly Bill No. 1890, Stats. ill 1996, ch. 854) and CCA Service shall limit their utilization of the information provided to the purposes for which it has been provided and shall not utilize such information, directly or indirectly, in providing other services, including but not limited to Direct Access services, in order to effectuate the obligations of this Agreement. Prior to disclosing any Confidential Information to its employees or representatives, CCA shall require such employees or representatives to whom Confidential Information is to be disclosed to review this Agreement and to agree in writing to be bound by the terms of this Agreement by signing the "Non-Disclosure Agreement for CCA Employees or Representatives" form attached as Exhibit A hereto. CCA shall provide Utility with copies of the signed Exhibit A forms at Utility request. CCA shall also provide Utility with a list of the names, titles, and addresses for all persons or entities to which Confidential Information is disclosed in connection herewith ("Disclosure List"). This Disclosure List shall be updated by CCA on a regular basis, and will be provided to Utility once each quarter at a minimum. 6. CCA shall be liable for the actions of, or any disclosure or use by, its employees or representatives contrary to this Agreement; however, such liability shall not limit or prevent any actions by Utility directly against such employees or representatives for improper disclosure and/or use. In no event shall CCA or its employees or representatives take any actions related to Confidential Information that are inconsistent with holding Confidential Information in strict confidence. CCA shall immediately notify Utility in writing if it becomes aware of the possibility of any misuse or misappropriation of the Confidential Information by CCA or any of its employees or representatives. However, nothing in this Agreement shall obligate Utility to monitor or enforce CCA's compliance with the terms of this Agreement. en12o1~+ Form 14-769 Page 5 7. CCA shal l comp ly with the consumer protections and requirements concerning subsequent disclosure and use of Confidential Inform at ion pursuant to Attachment B of CPUC Decision No. 12 -08 -045 , further explained in SCE 's ill Tariff Rule 25 G45 . ill 8. CCA acknow ledges that disclosure or misappropriation of any Confidential Information could cause irreparable harm to Utility and /or Utility Customers, the amount of which may be difficult to assess. Accordingly, CCA hereby confirm s that Utility sha ll be entitled to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction or the CPUC for an injunction, specific performance or such other relief (without posting bond) as may be appropriate in the event of imp roper disclosure or misuse of its Confident ial Inform at ion by CCA or it s employees or representatives. Such right sha ll , however, be construed to be in add ition to any other remedies availab le to Utility , in law or equity. 9 . In addition to al l other remedies, CCA shall indemnify and hold harmless Utility , its affiliates, subsidiaries , parent company, officers , emp loy ees , or agents from and against and claims, actions , suits , liabilities, damages, losses, expenses and costs (including reasonable attorneys ' fees, costs and disbursements) attr ibutabl e to actions or non -actions of CCA and /o r its emp loy ees and/or its representatives in connection with the use or disclosure of Confidential Information. 10 . If, at any time , CCA ceases it s investigation , pursui t Gf-implementation , and/or ill administration of community choice aggregat ion pursuant to PU Code Section ill 366.2 et seq., CCA sha ll promptly return or destroy (with written notice to Utility itemi zing the materials destroyed) all Confidential Inform ation then in its possession at the request of Utility. Notwithstanding the foregoing , the nondisclosure obligations of this Agreement sha ll surv ive any termination of this Agreement. 11. This Agreement sha ll be binding on and inure to the benefit of the successors and permitted ass ign s of the Parties hereto. This Agreement shal l not be assigned , however, without the prior written consent of the non -assigning Party , which consent may be withheld due to the confidentia l nature of the information, data and materials covered. 12. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations , understandings , communications , correspondence and representations , whether oral or written . This Agreement sha ll not be amended, modified or waived except by an instrument in writing , sign ed by both Parties , and, spec ifica lly , shall not be modified or waived by course of performance, course of dealing or usage of trade. Any waiver of a right under this Agreement shall be in writing, but no such writing shal l be deemed a subsequent waiver of that right, or any other right or remedy. en/201 ~F- 13. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference to its principles on conflicts of laws. 14. This Agreement shall, at all times, be subject to such changes or modifications by the CPUC as it may from time to time direct in the exercise of its jurisdiction. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the authorized representatives of the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SIGNATURE:------------- PRINT NAME: _________________________ __ TITLE: __________________________ ___ DATE: _________________________ ___ -----------------------------[CCAname] SIGNATURE:------------- PRINT NAME: ____________ _ TITLE:--------------- DATE: _________________________ __ Form 14-769 Page 6 @?;;\/201§27 EXHIBIT A NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT FOR CCA EMPLOYEES OR REPRESENTATIVES I, ______________ , declare under penalty of perjury that (1) I am employed as ________ (title) at ________ _ ____________ (employer and address); and (2) I have personally reviewed the attached COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATOR NON- DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT as executed by 0 -City, D County,O-Joint Powers AuthoritOr_ CCA (check only one) relating to disclosure {ill and use of Confidential Information (as defined therein) and I agree to be bound by its provisions. SIGNATURE: ________________________ __ PRINT NAME: _____________ _ TITLE: __________________ ___ DATE: _____________________ ___ Form 14-769 Page 7 e72/201!F l;~(f';<Z~'\I ~ou111mr-. t ,,ttFOttNIA i.....J EDISON \"//)/.'{)\II\ I IN\ 11/0,'-II l'c"''l'•"'' Southern California Edison Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 67481-E Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 61464-E Sheet 1 COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATOR NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT (To be inserted by utility) Advice 4017-E ~~-=-----------Decision 1C6 Form 14-769 Issued by Kevin Payne Chief Executive Officer (To be inserted by Cal. PUC) Date Submitted Jun 14, 2019 Effective Aug 27, 2020 Resolution SOUTHEim CALIFOimiA EDISON An EDISOl\' J.~ITUiNAT!ONAL Compan)' COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATOR NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT This Non-Disclosure Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into by and between Southern California Edison Company (SCE) ("Utility") and , a D City, D County, or D Joint Powers Authority who is (Check only one option) D a Community Choice Aggregator ("CCA"); or 0 an eligible entity under California Public Utilities Code ("PU Code") Section 331.1 who is actively investigating delivery of electric service to customers located within the geographic territory of the CCA This Agreement is effective as of _____________ . ("Effective Date"); This Agreement is executed pursuant to California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") Order Instituted Rulemaking ("OIR") 03-10-003, PU Code Section 366.2 et seq., and applicable Utility tariffs (as modified hereafter from time to time). As used herein the Utility and CCA may each be referred to individually as a "Party" and collectively as "Parties." The CPUC has determined that a CCA or an eligible entity actively investigating (C) becoming a CCA (collectively, "CCAs") may obtain specified confidential customer (C) information from Utility pursuant to Tariff Schedules Community Choice Aggregation - Information Fees ("CCA-INFO") and Community Choice Aggregation -Service Fees ("CCA- SF") (as modified hereafter from time to time) as a CCA, as defined by PU Code Section 331.1, solely in order to investigate, pursue, implement and/or administer Community Choice (C) Aggregation Services pursuant to PU Code Section 366.2, et seq. or solely to administer energy efficiency programs in the CCA's geographic territory upon CPUC authorization pursuant to PU Code Section 381.1 ("CCA Service"). The provisions of this Agreement and Schedules CCA-INFO and CCA-SF govern the disclosure of Utility's confidential customer information to CCA ("Disclosure Provisions"). Form 14-769 Page 1 7/2019 The Parties hereby mutually agree that: 1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, current proprietary and confidential information of Utility regarding customers of Utility ("Utility Customers") may be disclosed to CCA from time to time in connection herewith as provided by the Disclosure Provisions and solely for the purpose of CCA Service. Such disclosure is subject to the following legal continuing representations and warranties by CCA: Form 14-769 Page 2 (a) CCA represents and warrants that, pursuant to PU Code Section 331.1, (1) it is either (i) a city, county, or other entity as defined in PU Code Section 331.1 whose governing board has elected to combine the loads of its residents, businesses, and municipal facilities in a community wide electricity buyers, or (ii) a city, county, or other entity as defined in PU Code Section 331.1 that intends to actively investigate or pursue delivery of electric service to customers located within the geographic territory of the CCA; and (2) that to investigate, pursue or implement CCA Service, it requires certain Confidential Information, as defined in Section 2, below; (b) CCA represents and warrants that it has all necessary authority to enter into this Agreement, and that it is a binding enforceable Agreement according to its terms; (c) CCA represents and warrants that the authorized representative(s) executing this Agreement is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the CCA; (d) CCA confirms its understanding that the information of Utility Customers is of a highly sensitive confidential and proprietary nature, and that such information will be used as contemplated under the Disclosure Provisions solely for the purposes of investigating, pursuing, implementing, and/or administering CCA Service, and that any other use of the information may permit Utility to suspend providing further information hereunder; and 7/2019 (T)(C) (C) (T) Form 14-769 Page 3 (e) CCA represents and warrants that it will implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information, to protect the Confidential Information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure, and prohibits the use of the data for a secondary commercial purpose not related to CCA Service or energy efficiency purposes without the customer's prior consent to that use. 2. Any confidential and/or proprietary information disclosed to CCA in (T) connection with the CCA's investigating, pursuing, implementing, and/or (C) administering CCA Service, without limitation, the following information about I Utility Customers: (i) unique customer identifier, customer name, service I address with zip code, mailing address with zip code, email address, (C) telephone number, meter number, monthly kWh usage, monthly maximum demand where available, electrical or gas consumption data as defined in PU Code Section 8380, copies of customer bills, other data detailing electricity or (N) needs and patterns of usage, Baseline Zone, CARE participation, End Use Code (Heat Source) Service Voltage, Medical Baseline, Meter Cycle, Bill Cycle, Level Pay Plan and/or other plans, Horse Power Load and Number of Units and monthly rate schedule for all accounts within the CCA's geographic territory; and (ii) summary bills for service provided by SCE, other electric (N) service providers, or other CCAs (collectively, "Confidential Information"). I Upon request of the CCA, SCE will provide customer-specific Confidential I Information as requested by the CCA in accordance with SCE's Schedule I CCA-SF and Schedule CCA-INFO. Confidential Information shall also include (N) specifically any copies, drafts, revisions, analyses, summaries, extracts, memoranda, reports and other materials prepared by CCA or its representatives that are derived from or based on Confidential Information disclosed by Utility, regardless of the form of media in which it is prepared, recorded or retained. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Confidential Information (N) shall not include materials derived from or based on Confidential Information if I any such Confidential Information has been aggregated sufficiently to comply I with the 15/15 Rule, set forth in Special Condition 1 of SCE's Schedule CCA-I INFO and CPUC Decision 97-10-031. (N) 3. Except for electric usage information and bills provided to CCA pursuant to (N) this Agreement, Confidential Information does not include information that CCA proves (a) was properly in the possession of CCA at the time of disclosure; (b) is or becomes publicly known through no fault of CCA, its employees or representatives; or (c) was independently developed by CCA, its employees or representatives without access to any Confidential Information. 4. From the Effective Date, no portion of the Confidential Information may be disclosed, disseminated or appropriated by CCA, or used for any purpose other than for CCA Service as permitted under this Agreement and the Disclosure Provisions. 7/2019 Form 14-769 Page 4 5. CCA shall, at all times and in perpetuity, keep the Confidential Information in the strictest confidence and shall take all reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized or improper disclosure or use of Confidential Information. CCA shall implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information, to protect the Confidential Information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure and prohibits the use of the data for a secondary commercial purpose not related to CCA Service. Specifically, CCA shall restrict access to Confidential Information, and to materials prepared in connection therewith, to those employees or representatives of CCA who have a "need to know" such Confidential Information in the course of their duties with respect to the CCA Service and who agree to be bound by the nondisclosure and confidentiality obligations of this Agreement, provided, however, that, an Energy Service Provider, agent, or any other entity, including entities that provide both direct access (PU Code Section 365.1) and CCA Service shall limit their utilization (T) of the information provided to the purposes for which it has been provided and shall not utilize such information, directly or indirectly, in providing other services, including but not limited to Direct Access services, in order to effectuate the obligations of this Agreement. Prior to disclosing any Confidential Information to its employees or representatives, CCA shall require such employees or representatives to whom Confidential Information is to be disclosed to review this Agreement and to agree in writing to be bound by the terms of this Agreement by signing the "Non-Disclosure Agreement for CCA Employees or Representatives" form attached as Exhibit A hereto. CCA shall provide Utility with copies of the signed Exhibit A forms at Utility request. CCA shall also provide Utility with a list of the names, titles, and addresses for all persons or entities to which Confidential Information is disclosed in connection herewith ("Disclosure List"). This Disclosure List shall be updated by CCA on a regular basis, and will be provided to Utility once each quarter at a minimum. 6. CCA shall be liable for the actions of, or any disclosure or use by, its employees or representatives contrary to this Agreement; however, such liability shall not limit or prevent any actions by Utility directly against such employees or representatives for improper disclosure and/or use. In no event shall CCA or its employees or representatives take any actions related to Confidential Information that are inconsistent with holding Confidential Information in strict confidence. CCA shall immediately notify Utility in writing if it becomes aware of the possibility of any misuse or misappropriation of the Confidential Information by CCA or any of its employees or representatives. However, nothing in this Agreement shall obligate Utility to monitor or enforce CCA's compliance with the terms of this Agreement. 7/2019 Form 14-769 Page 5 7. CCA shall comply with the consumer protections and requirements concerning subsequent disclosure and use of Confidential Information pursuant to Attachment B of CPUC Decision No. 12-08-045, further explained in SCE's (T) Tariff Rule 25. (T) 8. CCA acknowledges that disclosure or misappropriation of any Confidential Information could cause irreparable harm to Utility and/or Utility Customers, the amount of which may be difficult to assess. Accordingly, CCA hereby confirms that Utility shall be entitled to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction or the CPUC for an injunction, specific performance or such other relief (without posting bond) as may be appropriate in the event of improper disclosure or misuse of its Confidential Information by CCA or its employees or representatives. Such right shall, however, be construed to be in addition to any other remedies available to Utility, in law or equity. 9. In addition to all other remedies, CCA shall indemnify and hold harmless Utility, its affiliates, subsidiaries, parent company, officers, employees, or agents from and against and claims, actions, suits, liabilities, damages, losses, expenses and costs (including reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements) attributable to actions or non-actions of CCA and/or its employees and/or its representatives in connection with the use or disclosure of Confidential Information. 10. If, at any time, CCA ceases its investigation, pursuit, implementation, and/or (T) administration of community choice aggregation pursuant to PU Code Section (T) 366.2 et seq., CCA shall promptly return or destroy (with written notice to Utility itemizing the materials destroyed) all Confidential Information then in its possession at the request of Utility. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the nondisclosure obligations of this Agreement shall survive any termination of this Agreement. 11. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the successors and permitted assigns of the Parties hereto. This Agreement shall not be assigned, however, without the prior written consent of the non-assigning Party, which consent may be withheld due to the confidential nature of the information, data and materials covered. 12. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, communications, correspondence and representations, whether oral or written. This Agreement shall not be amended, modified or waived except by an instrument in writing, signed by both Parties, and, specifically, shall not be modified or waived by course of performance, course of dealing or usage of trade. Any waiver of a right under this Agreement shall be in writing, but no such writing shall be deemed a subsequent waiver of that right, or any other right or remedy. 7/2019 13. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference to its principles on conflicts of laws. 14. This Agreement shall, at all times, be subject to such changes or modifications by the CPUC as it may from time to time direct in the exercise of its jurisdiction. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the authorized representatives of the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SIGNATURE:------------- PRINT NAME:-------------- TITLE:-------------- DATE: ________________ __ ------------------[CCA name] SIGNATURE: _______________ __ PRINT NAME: _____________ _ TITLE:-------------- DATE: _________________ ___ Form 14-769 Page 6 7/2019 EXHIBIT A NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT FOR CCA EMPLOYEES OR REPRESENTATIVES I, ______________ , declare under penalty of perjury that (1) I am employed as ________ (title) at ________ _ ____________ (employer and address); and (2) I have personally reviewed the attached COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATOR NON- DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT as executed by 0 City, D County, D Joint Powers Authority, or D CCA (check only one) relating to disclosure and (N) use of Confidential Information (as defined therein) and I agree to be bound by its provisions. SIGNATURE: ________________________ __ PRINT NAME: _____________ _ TITLE:-------------- DATE: ________________ __ Form 14-769 Page 7 7/2019 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK AUGUST 31, 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, September 1, 2020 City Council meeting: Item No. c D E H 1 2 4 Description of Material Updated typographic error on Staff Report pg.3 Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Lozano and Sunshine Email from: Brian Whitten Email from: Sunshine; Jean Longacre Email exchange between City Manager Mihranian and Tom Irish Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Lozano and Donna Mclaughlin; Brian Whitten Email from: Thomas & Barbara Chargaff; Sunshine; J. Timothy Fives; Sharon Dyer; Dr. Linda L. Varner; Diane Montalto; Miguel Castaneda; Sharon Benton; Jackie Morley; Frank Sanic; Teri Hogan; Karen E; Marc & Carrie Fernandez; Brian Whitten; Marian Locascio; Kurt Schellenbach; Donna Mclaughlin; Marcia Watanabe; Laurie Smith; Julie Winter; Gerard Melling; Anita Harrison; Terry & Jim Scott; Leslie Gold; Rick Bragg Email from: Sunshine Email from: Matthew Gelfand Email from: Mickey Radich Email from: Craig Whited Additions/Revisions and Amendments to the Agenda Monday,August31, 2020 Page 2 Respectfully submitted, L\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\20200901 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\20200901 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: To City Clerk's Office: Charl es Ed er M o nd ay, Au g ust 3 1, 2020 3:45 PM CityC ierk Laure n Ra m eza ni ; Ron Drag oo Late Corres p o nd ence -Item C -Awa rd Burma Road Ga t e -Tab le Co rrected RPV CC_0901 20 20 Award Burm a Tr ail Ga t es.pd f Late Correspondent -Consent Calendar Item C-There are two inadvertent typographic errors in the Staff Report for {{Award Burma Trail Gates" (attached). The corrections are on the table in page 3 of the staff report and are shown below in red below. The project total remains the same, but the Construction and Contingency amounts should read as follows: 8422 -Proj ect Cost Summary Description Ori g in a l Budget Proj ect Cos ts : 88 02 Co nstruction 880 2 Co nst ru ct ion Co ntin gency Tota l P roj ect Co sts Uncom mi tted /Unspent Ba lance Please make note of the changes (in red). Thank you . Charles Eder, PE Senior Engineer Department of Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel : 310-544 -5282 Fax : 310-544 -5292 Budget 100 ,000 .00 Committed 49,270 4 ,927 54,197 $ 54,197 Notes FY2 0-2 1 Budge t YTD Expenses Ba lance -49 ,270 Pe ndin g a pprov a l CC 9/1/2 020 -4,927 Pe nd in g ap proval CC 9/1/2 02 0 -54 ,197 - $ 54,197 c . CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: 09/01/2020 AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar AGENDA TITLE: Consideration and possible action to award a construction contract for the Burma Road Trai lh ead gate. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Award a construction contract to Metrocell Construction, Inc ., in the not-to - exceed amount of $49,270, for the construction of fences and gates at the Burma Road Trailhead; (2) Authori ze the City Manager or Director of Finance to execute change orders up to an additional 10% of the value of Metrocell Construction , Inc. contract (not to exceed $4,927) as contingency funds for potential unforeseen condit ion s; (3) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contracts , in forms approved by the C ity Attorney. FISCAL IMPACT: The recommendations will result in a tota l authorized expenditure for construction, plus provide for a project contingency not to exceed $54 ,197. Amount Budgeted: $100,000 Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): 330-400-8422-88021Vl (CIP-Burma Road Trails /Oth er Improveme nts ) ORIGINATED BY: REVIEWED BY: Charles Eder, PE, Sen ior Eng ineer Cf' Ron Dragoo, PE, Principal Engir.tg'~ APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian , AICP, C ity Manager.L\.A ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A Construction Agreement with Metrocell Construction , Inc. (page A -1) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On July 31, 2018 , the City Counci l received and filed a presentation by Staff detailing the parking and access conditions at the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve (Nature Preserve). This included recommendations to install a gate at the Burma Road Trailhead to address resident concerns pertaining to , among other things, the on -go ing 1 after-hour use of the Nature Preserve. On January 15, 2019, the City Council authorized the installation of a gate, similar to the approved Burma Road Trailhead gate, at the Rattlesnake Trailhead to minimize the unauthorized after-hour use and activities in the general area. The design concept of these trailhead gates were developed in collaboration with the neighboring Homeowners Associations (HOA) to ensure their concerns were addressed. In response, staff gathered the proper information and created a bid package for the installation of fences and gates at these two trailheads. The project was advertised on October 1, 2019, with bids due October 29. Several interested contractors attended the pre-bid meeting, but ultimately no bids were received. In accordance with the Public Contract Code 20166, the City was then free to negotiate with a contractor. Staff worked with several contractors to obtain quotes. Staff received responsive quotes from Metrocell Construction, Inc. for both trailhead gates as one project or as separate projects. During this time, the Island View HOA raised potential liability and indemnification concerns with the public's use and location of the proposed Rattlesnake Trailhead fence and gate. The City Attorney's Office is researching a resolution to the HOA's concerns based on the application of "trail immunity" under Government Code§ 831.4. As reported at the August 18 City Council meeting, this matter is still under discussion with the Island View HOA, and because construction could be separated into two projects, staff is proposing to proceed with the construction of the Burma Road Trailhead gate at this time. Staff believes that the concerns regarding the Rattlesnake Trailhead gate can be mutually resolved in the next few weeks and a construction contract presented for City Council consideration in October. Construction Services Staff has verified Metrocell Construction, Inc.'s references and found its past performance on jobs to be fully satisfactory. It has completed projects of similar size in the City in a professional manner, with sufficient workers, and in a timely fashion. Its bid and bid bond are in order and its contractor's license is current. Accordingly, staff recommends awarding a construction contract to Metrocell Construction, Inc., in the amount of $49,270. If awarded this evening, construction is anticipated to commence by mid-September 2020. Total Project Budget and Costs Adopting staff's recommendations will award a construction contract to Metrocell Construction, Inc. (not to exceed $49,270), with authorization of an additional 10% of the project construction contract amount (not to exceed $4,927) as a contingency for unforeseen circumstances. 2 A summary of the project budget and cost is presented below : 8422 -Project Cost Summary Description Budget Notes Original Budget 100 ,000.00 FY20 -21 Budget YTD Project Costs: Committed Expenses Balance 8802 Construction 47,290 -47 ,290 Pending approval cc 9/1/2020 8802 Construction 4,729 4,729 Pending approval Contingency -cc 9/1/2020 Total Project Costs 54,197 -54,197 U ncom m itted/U ns pent Balance $ 54,197 $ 54,197 ALTERNATIVES: In addition to Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council 's consideration: 1. Do not award the contract and direct staff to re -issue construction bids. 2. Take other action , as deemed appropriate. 3 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT By and Between CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES and METROCELL CONSTRUCTION INC. 01203 0006/300347.1 A-1 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BURMA ROAD TRAILHEAD GATE BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND METROCELL CONSTRUCTION INC. THIS AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES (herein "Agreement") is made and entered into on September I, 2020 by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Metrocell Construction Inc., a California corporation ("Contractor"). City and Contractor 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 ofthe services defined and described particularly in Article I ofthis Agreement. B. Contractor, 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 Contractor for performance ofthose services defined and described particularly in Article I of this Agreement and desire that the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein. OPERATIVE PROVISIONS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe 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. WORK OF CONTRACTOR 1.1 Scope of Work. In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Contractor shall provide those services specified in the "Scope of Work" 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, Contractor represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to properly perform the work required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated herein. Contractor shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Contractor covenants that it shall follow the highest -I-A-2 01203 0006/30034 71 professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "highest professional standards'' shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work under similar circumstances. 1.2 Bid Documents. The Scope ofWork shall include the "General Provisions" and ''Special Provisions'' in the bid documents for the project entitled Burma Road Trailhead Gate, including any documents or exhibits referenced therein (collectively, ''bid documents"), all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of the bid documents and this Agreement, the terms ofthis Agreement shall govern. 1.3 Compliance with Law. Contractor 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 Compliance with California Labor Law. (a) Public Work. The Parties acknowledge that 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 I (commencing with Section 1720) ofthe California Labor Code relating to public works contracts and the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations ("DlR") implementing such statutes. The work performed under this Agreement is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Contractor shall post job site notices, as prescribed by regulation. (b) Prevailing Wages. Contractor shall pay prevailing wages to the extent required by Labor Code Section 1771. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request. By initiating any work under this Agreement, Contractor acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) determination of the prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Contractor shall post a copy of the same at each job site where work is performed under this Agreement. (c) Penalty for Failure to Pay Prevailing Wages. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The Contractor shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid Jess than the prevailing rates as determined by the DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public \Vork done pursuant to this Agreement by Contractor or by any subcontractor. -2-A-3 0 I 203 0006/300347 I (d) Payroll Records. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Contractor and each subcontractor to: keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of pe1:jury, 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. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects. Contractor shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Contractor shall provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within sixty (60) days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Contractor and each of its subcontractors shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement. (f) Eight-Hour Work Day. Contractor acknowledges that eight (8) hours labor constitutes a legal day's work. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 18I 0. (g) Penalties for Excess Hours. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 18I3 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. The Contractor shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Contractor or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during \vhich 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 I, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code section I8I5, work performed by employees of Contractor in excess of eight (8) hours per day, and forty ( 40) hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than one and one-half (I Yz) times the basic rate of pay. (h) Workers' Compensation. California Labor Code Sections I860 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 I86 L Contractor certifies as follows: ''I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.'' Contractor's Authorized Initials ---- (i) Contractor's Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor who will perform work under this Agreement, Contractor shall be responsible for -3-A-4 01203 0006/30034 7 I such subcontractor's compliance with Division 2, Part 7. Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code, and shall make such compliance a requirement in any contract with any subcontractor for work under this Agreement. Contractor shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor's compliance, including without limitation, conducting a review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor on a periodic basis or upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Contractor shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any such failure by any subcontractor. 1.5 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments. Contractor shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits, registrations, and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Contractor 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 Contractor'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. (a) By executing this Agreement, Contractor warrants that Contractor (i) has thoroughly investigated and considered the scope ofwork 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, Contractor warrants that Contractor has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services hereunder. (b) Contractor shall promptly, and before the follmving conditions are disturbed, notify the City, in writing, of any: (i) material Contractor believes may be hazardous waste as defined in Section 25117 of the Health & Safety Code required to be removed to a Class I, II, or III disposal site in accordance with existing law; (ii) subsurface, unknown or latent conditions, materially different from those indicated; or (iii) unknown physical conditions at the site of any unusual nature, different from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in this Agreement, and will materially affect the performance ofthe services hereunder. (c) City shall promptly investigate the conditions, and if it finds that the conditions do materially differ, or do involve hazardous waste, and cause a decrease or increase in Contractor's cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work, shall issue a change order per Section 1.10 of this Agreement. (d) In the event that a dispute arises between City and Contractor whether the conditions materially differ, or involve hazardous waste, or cause a decrease or increase in Contractor's cost of, or time required for, performance of any part of the work, -4-A-5 01203 0006/30034 7 1 Contractor shall not be excused from any scheduled completion date set, but shall proceed \Vith all work to be performed under the Agreement. Contractor shall retain any and all rights provided either by contract or by law, which pertain to the resolution of disputes and protests between the contracting parties. (e) City will compensate Contractor to the extent required by Government Code Section 4215 by issuing a change order per Section 1.10 of this Agreement. 1. 7 Protection and Care of Work and Materials. The Contractor shall adopt reasonable methods, including providing and maintaining storage facilities, 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 ofthe work by City, except such losses or damages as caused by City's own negligence. Stored materials shall be reasonably accessible for inspection. Contractor shall not, without City's consent, assign, sell, mortgage, hypothecate, or remove equipment or materials which have been installed or delivered and which may be necessary for the completion of the work. 1.8 Warranty. Contractor warrants all work under the Agreement (which for purposes of this Section shall be deemed to include unauthorized work which has not been removed and any non-conforming materials incorporated into the work) to be of good quality and free from any defective or faulty material and workmanship. Contractor agrees that for a period of one year (or the period of time specified elsewhere in the Agreement or in any guarantee or warranty provided by any manufacturer or supplier of equipment or materials incorporated into the work, whichever is later) after the date of final acceptance, Contractor shall within ten ( 1 0) days after being notified in writing by the City of any defect in the work or non-conformance of the work to the Agreement, commence and prosecute with due diligence all work necessary to fulfill the terms of the warranty at its sole cost and expense. Contractor shall act as soon as requested by the City in response to an emergency. In addition, Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, repair, remove and replace any portions of the work (or work of other contractors) damaged by its defective work or which becomes damaged in the course of repairing or replacing defective work. For any work so corrected, Contractor's obligation hereunder to correct defective work shall be reinstated for an additional one year period, commencing with the date of acceptance of such corrected work. Contractor shall perform such tests as the City may require to verify that any corrective actions, including, without limitation, redesign, repairs, and replacements comply with the requirements of the Agreement. All costs associated with such corrective actions and testing, including the removal, replacement, and reinstitution of equipment and materials necessary to gain access, shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. All warranties and guarantees of subcontractors, suppliers and manufacturers with respect to any portion of the work, whether express or implied, are deemed to be obtained by Contractor for the benefit of the City, regardless of whether or not such warranties and guarantees have been transferred or assigned to the City by separate agreement and Contractor agrees to enforce such warranties and guarantees, if necessary, on behalf of the City. In the event that Contractor fails to perform its obligations under this Section, or under any other warranty or guaranty under this Agreement, to the reasonable satisfaction of the City, the -5-A-6 012030006/300347.1 City shall have the right to correct and replace any defective or non-conforming work and any work damaged by such work or the replacement or correction thereof at Contractor's sole expense. Contractor shall be obligated to fully reimburse the City for any expenses incurred hereunder upon demand. 1.9 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. 1.10 Additional Work and Change Orders. (a) 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 Work or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be undertaken unless a written change order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Contractor, incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the written approval of the Contractor ("Change Order"). All Change Orders must be signed by the Contractor and Contract Officer prior to commencing the extra work thereunder. (b) Any increase in compensation of up to ten percent (1 0%) of the Contract Sum or $25,000, whichever is less; or any increase in the time to perform of up to one hundred eighty ( 180) days; and does not materially affect the Work and which are not detrimental to the Work or to the interest of the City, may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increases, taken either separately or cumulatively, must be approved by the City Council. (c) Any adjustment in the Contract Sum for a Change Order must be in accordance with the rates set forth in the Schedule of Compensation in Exhibit "C". If the rates in the Schedule of Compensation do not cover the type ofwork in the Change Order, the cost of such work shall not exceed an amount agreed upon in writing and signed by Contractor and Contract Officer. If the cost ofthe Change Order cannot be agreed upon, the City will pay for actual work of the Change Order completed, to the satisfaction of the City, as follows: (i) Labor: the cost of labor shall be the actual cost for wages of workers and subcontractors performing the work for the Change Order at the time such work is done. The use of labor classifications that would increase the cost of such work shall not be permitted. (ii) Materials and Equipment: the cost of materials and equipment shall be at cost to Contractor or lowest current price which such materials and equipment are reasonably available at the time the work is done, whichever is lower. (iii) If the cost of the extra work cannot be agreed upon, the Contractor must provide a daily report that includes invoices for labor, materials and equipment -6-A-7 01203.0006/300347.1 costs for the work under the Change Order. The daily report must include: list of names ofworkers, classifications, and hours worked; description and list of quantities of materials used; type of equipment, size, identification number, and hours of operation, including loading and transportation, if applicable; description of other City authorized services and expenditures in such detail as the City may require. Failure to submit a daily report by the close of the next working day may, at the City's sole and absolute discretion, waive the Contractor's rights for that day. (d) It is expressly understood by Contractor that the provisions of this Section 1.10 shall not apply to services specifically set forth in the Scope of Work. Contractor hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to be provided pursuant to the Scope of Work may be more costly or time consuming than Contractor anticipates and that Contractor shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor. City may in its sole and absolute discretion have similar work done by other contractors. (e) No claim for an increase in the Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the procedures established in this Section are followed. 1.11 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 Contractor the amounts specified in the "Schedule of Compensation" attached hereto as Exhibit "C'' and incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for actual expenses, shall not exceed $49,270 (Forty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Dollars) (the "Contract Sum"), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1.1 0. 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 the contract retention; (iii) payment for time and materials based upon the Contractor'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. -7-A-8 01203 0006/3003471 2.3 Reimbursable Expenses. Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.5, and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the attendance of Contractor at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City. Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If Contractor is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Contractor shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings. 2.4 Invoices. Each month Contractor 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, Contractor 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. Contractor shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person. City shall, as soon as practicable, independently review each invoice submitted by the Contractor to determine whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions ofthis Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Contractor which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will cause Contractor to be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt of Contractor's correct and undisputed invoice; however, Contractor 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 that City does not cause Contractor to be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt of an undisputed and properly submitted invoice, Contractor shall be entitled to the payment of interest to the extent allowed under Public Contract Code Section 20104.50. In the event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City to Contractor, not later than seven (7) days after receipt by the City, for correction and resubmission. Returned invoices shall be accompanied by a document setting forth in writing the reasons why the payment request was rejected. Review and payment by the City of any invoice provided by the Contractor shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided herein or any applicable law. 2.5 Waiver. Payment to Contractor for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Contractor. ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE 3.1 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance ofthis Agreement. -8-A-9 01203 0006/3003471 3.2 Schedule of Performance. Contractor shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a vvritten notice to proceed and shall perform all services \Vithin the time period(s) established in the "Schedule of Performance" attached hereto as Exhibit "0" and incorporated herein by this reference. When requested by the Contractor, 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 ofthe 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 Contractor, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or ofthe 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 Contractor shall with in 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 asce1iain 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 Contractor be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of this Agreement, however caused, Contractor's sole remedy being extension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section. 3.4 Inspection and Final Acceptance. City may inspect and accept or reject any of Contractor's work under this Agreement, either during performance or when completed. City shall reject or finally accept Contractor's work within forty-five (45) days after submitted to City. City shall accept work by a timely written acceptance, otherwise work shall be deemed to have been rejected. City's acceptance shall be conclusive as to such work except with respect to latent defects, fraud and such gross mistakes as to amount to fraud. Acceptance of any work by City shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement including, but not limited to, Articles I and 5, pertaining to warranty and indemnification and insurance, respectively. 3.5 Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding one (I) years from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit "0"). -9-A-10 01203.0006/300347.1 ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK 4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Contractor. The following principals of Contractor ("Principals") are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Contractor authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith: James Culwell President (Name) (Title) Christine Culwell ----Secretary (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 Principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Contractor and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. All personnel of Contractor, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced by Contractor without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Contractor shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Contractor's staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement. Contractor shall notify City of any changes in Contractor'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 Contractor. Contractor 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. Contractor shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Contractor or any of Contractor's officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers, employees or agents of City. Neither Contractor, nor any of Contractor'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. Contractor expressly waives any claim Contractor may have to any such rights. 4.3 Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall be Ron Dragoo, City Engineer or such person as may be designated by the City Manager. Tt shall be the Contractor's responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Contractor 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 ofthe Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in writing by the City -10-A-11 01203 0006/3003471 Manager, to sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this Agreement. 4.4 Independent Contractor. Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Contractor, 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 Contractor's employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing their number, compensation or hours of service. Contractor 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. Contractor 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 Contractor in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any joint enterprise with Contractor. 4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment. The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Contractor, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, Contractor 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. All subcontractors shall obtain, at its or Contractor's expense, such licenses, permits. registrations and approvals (including from the City) as may be required by law for the performance of any services or work under this Agreement. 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 Contractor, 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 Contractor or any surety of Contractor of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City. ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE, INDEMNIFICATION AND BONDS 5.1 Insurance Coverages. Without limiting Contractor's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of any services under this Agreement, Contractor 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. Contractor 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 $2,000,000 per occurrence, $4,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has -11-A-12 01203 0006/30034 7 I not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO "insured contract" language \Vill not be accepted. (b) Automobile liability insurance. Contractor 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 Contractor 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 Jess than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident (c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Contractor 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 Contractor agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement. (d) Workers' compensation insurance. Contractor shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer's Liability Insurance (with limits of at least $1 ,000,000). (e) Subcontractors. Contractor 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. Contractor 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. Contractor 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 Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. (c) Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Contractor 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- -12-A-13 012030006/3003471 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 Contractor or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Contractor payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement. (e) Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or that is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A-(or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City's Risk Manager. (f) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow Contractor or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to \Vaive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Contractor hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subcontractors. (g) Enforcement of contract provisions (non-estoppel). Contractor acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform Contractor 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 Contractor maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Contractor. 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. Contractor agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage. (j) Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers shall -13-A-14 01203 0006/3003471 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 vvill 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 Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer's limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions. (m) Pass through clause. Contractor 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 Contractor, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of Contractor. Contractor 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. Contractor 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 Contractor ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Contractor, the City and Contractor may renegotiate Contractor'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. Contractor shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Contractor's performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies. ( q) Additional insurance. Contractor 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, Contractor 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 -14-A-15 01203 0006/30034 7 I connection with the negligent performance ofthe work, operations or activities provided herein of Contractor, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or entity for which Contractor is legally liable ("indemnitors"), or arising from Contractor's or indemnitors' reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Contractor's or indemnitors' negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement, and in connection therewith: (a) Contractor will defend any action or actions tiled 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) Contractor 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 Contractor hereunder; and Contractor agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless therefi·om; (c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Contractor 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 Contractor hereunder, Contractor 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. In addition, Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnified Pmties from, any and all claims and liabilities for any infringement of patent rights, copyrights or trademark on any person or persons in consequence of the use by the Indemnified Parties of articles to be supplied by Contractor under this Agreement, and of which the Contractor is not the patentee or assignee or has not the lawful right to sell the same. Contractor shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if it fails to do so Contractor 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 Contractor in the performance of professional services and work 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 Contractor and shall survive termination ofthis Agreement. -I 5-A-16 012010006/300347 I 5.4 Notification of Third-Party Claims. City shall timely notify Contractor of the receipt of any third-party claim relating to the work under this Agreement. City shall be entitled to recover from Contractor its reasonable costs incurred in providing such notification. 5.5 Performance and Labor Bonds. Concurrently \Vith execution of this Agreement Contractor shall deliver to the City, the following: (a) A performance bond in the amount of the Contract Sum of this Agreement, in the form provided by the City Clerk, which secures the faithful performance of this Agreement. (b) A labor and materials bond in the amount of the Contract Sum of this Agreement, in the form provided by the City Clerk, which secures the payment of all persons furnishing labor and/or materials in connection with the work under this Agreement. Both the performance and labors bonds required under this Section 5.5 shall contain the original notarized signature of an authorized officer of the surety and affixed thereto shall be a certified and current copy of his power of attorney. The bond shall be unconditional and remain in force during the entire term of the Agreement and shall be null and void only if the Contractor promptly and faithfully performs all terms and conditions of this Agreement and pays all labor and materials for work and services under this Agreement. 5.6 Sufficiency of Insurer or Surety. Insurance and bonds required by this Agreement shall be satisfactory only if issued by companies qualified to do business in California, rated "A" or better in the most recent edition of Best's Rating Guide. The Key Rating Guide or in the Federal Register, and only if they are of a financial category Class VII or better, unless such requirements are waived by the Risk Manager of the City ("Risk Manager'') due to unique circumstances. If this Agreement continues for more than 3 years duration, or in the event the Risk Manager determines that the work or services to be performed under this Agreement creates an increased or decreased risk of loss to the City, the Contractor agrees that the minimum limits of the insurance policies and the performance bond required by Section 5.5 may be changed accordingly upon receipt of written notice from the Risk Manager. 5.7 Substitution of Securities. Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22300, substitution of eligible equivalent securities for any funds withheld to ensure performance under this Agreement may be permitted at the request and sole expense of the Contractor. Alternatively, the Contractor may, pursuant to an escrow agreement in a form prescribed by Public Contract Code Section 22300, request payment of retentions funds earned directly to the escrow agent at the sole expense of the Contractor. -I 6-A-17 012030006/3003471 5.8 Release of Securities. City shall release the Performance and Labor Bonds when the following have occurred: (a) Contractor has made a written request for release and provided evidence of satisfaction of all other requirements under Article 5 of this Agreement; (b) the Work has been accepted; and (c) after passage ofthe time yvithin which lien claims are required to be made pursuant to applicable lm:vs; if lien claims have been timely filed, City shall hold the Labor Bond until such claims have been resolved, Contractor has provided statutory bond, or otherwise as required by applicable law. ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION 6.1 Records. Contractor shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies, certified and accurate copies of payroll records in compliance with all applicable laws, 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 3 years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such records in the event any audit is reg uired. In the event of dissolution of Contractor's business, custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by Contractor's successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Contractor shall fully cooperate with the City in providing access to the books and records if a public records request is made and disclosure is required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records Act. 6.2 Reports. Contractor shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such rep01ts concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. Contractor 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, Contractor agrees that if Contractor 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 Contractor is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Contractor shall promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Contractor is providing design services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed. -17-A-18 01203.0006/300347.1 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 Contractor, 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 Contractor 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 Contractor will be at the City's sole risk and without liability to Contractor, and Contractor's guarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Contractor may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Contractor shall have an unrestricted 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 Contractor fails to secure such assignment, Contractor shall indemnify City for all damages resulting therefrom. Moreover, Contractor with respect to any documents and materials that may qualify as "works made for hire" as defined in 17 U.S.C. § I 0 I, such documents and materials are hereby deemed "works made for hire'' for the City. 6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information. (a) information gained or work product produced by Contractor in performance ofthis Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Contractor. Contractor 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) Contractor, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not, without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Contractor gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. (c) If Contractor, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of Contractor, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Contractor for any damages, costs and fees, including attorneys' fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Contractor's conduct. (d) Contractor shall promptly notify City should Contractor, 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 Contractor or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Contractor agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by -18-A-19 01203 0006/30034 7 I Contractor. However, this right to revie\v 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 ofthe parties in accordance with the laws ofthe 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 Contractor 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. (a) Default; Cure. In the event that Contractor is in default under the terms of this Agreement the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Contractor for any work performed after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Contractor of the default and the reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Contractor 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 Contractor is in default, the City shall hold all invoices and shall proceed with payment on the invoices only when the default is cured. 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 Contractor 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 Contractor'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. (b) Dispute Resolution. This contract is subject to the provisions of Article 1.5 (commencing at Section 201 04) of Division 2, Pmt 3 of the California Public Contract Code regarding the resolution of public works claims of less than $375,000. Article 1.5 mandates certain procedures for the filing of claims and supporting documentation by the Contractor, for the response to such claims by the City, for a mandatory meet and confer conference upon the request of the Contractor, for mandatory non-binding mediation in the event litigation is commenced, and for mandatory judicial arbitration upon the failure to resolve the dispute through mediation. This Agreement hereby incorporates the provisions of A1ticle 1.5 as though fully set f01th herein. 7.3 Retention of Funds. Contractor hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Contractor (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 Contractor's acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Contractor's -19-A-20 01203 0006/300347 I 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 Contractor, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, vvithout liability for interest because of such \Vithholding, 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 Contractor 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 ofthe provisions ofthis 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 Contractor 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, Contractor shall file a claim pursuant to Government Code Sections 905 et seq. and 91 0 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement. 7.7 Liquidated Damages. Since the determination of actual damages for any delay in performance of this Agreement would be extremely difficult or impractical to determine in the event of a breach of this Agreement, the Contractor and its sureties shall be liable for and shall pay to the City the sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($300) as liquidated damages for each working day of delay in the performance of any service required hereunder, as specified in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit "D"). The City may withhold from any monies payable on account of services performed by the Contractor any accrued liquidated damages. Pursuant to Government Code Section 4215, Contractor shall not be assessed liquidated damages for delay in completion of the project when such delay was caused by the failure of the public agency or owner of the utility to provide for removal or relocation of utility facilities. -20-A-21 01203.0006/300347.1 7.8 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term. This Section shall govern any termination of this Contract except as specifically provided in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Contractor. except that where termination is due to the fault of the Contractor, the period of notice may be such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. In addition, the Contractor 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 ofthe City, the period of notice may be such shorter time as the Contractor may determine. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Contractor shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Except where the Contractor has initiated termination, the Contractor 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 Contractor has initiated termination, the Contractor shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the work product actually produced hereunder. ln 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 Contractor. If termination is due to the failure ofthe Contractor 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 Contractor 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 Contractor for the purpose of set-off or pm1ial payment ofthe amounts owed the City as previously stated. 7.10 Attorneys' Fees. lf 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 cow1 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. 7.11 Unfair Business Practices Claims. In entering into this Agreement, Contractor offers and agrees to assign to the City all rights, title, and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton -21-A-22 01 20 3 0006/30034 7 1 Act (15 U.S.C. § 15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2, (commencing with Section 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods, services or materials related to this Agreement. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time the City renders final payment to the Contractor without further acknowledgment of the Parties. 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 Contractor, 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 Contractor or to its successor, or for breach of any obi igation of the terms ofthis Agreement. 8.2 Conflict of Interest. Contractor 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 Contractor's performance of services under this Agreement. Contractor 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. Contractor agrees to at all times avoid conilicts of interest or the appearance of any conf1icts of interest with the interests of City in the performance ofthis 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 effects his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. The Contractor warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third patty any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement. 8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination. Contractor covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, 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. Contractor 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. Contractor 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 Contractor so employ -22-A-23 OJ 203 0006/300347 I 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, Contractor hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred by City. ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 9.1 Notices. Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 and in the case of the Contractor, to the person 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. All correspondence relating to this Agreement shall be serialized consecutively. 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 ofthis 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 pa11ies hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between the pm1ies, 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 Contractor 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 -23-A-24 () 12030006/300347.1 Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent ofthe parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either pa11y 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, pm1nership, 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 "non interests" pursuant to Government Code Sections 1 091 or I 091 .5. Contractor 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. Contractor 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. Contractor 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. Contractor's Authorized Initials --- 9.7 Corporate Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the pa11ies 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) the 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 ofthe parties. !SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] -24-A-25 01203.0006/300347.1 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 CONTRACTOR: METROCELL CONSTRUCTION INC. By: ________________________ ___ Name: James Culwell Title: President By: ____________________________ _ Name: Christine Culwell Title: Secretary Address: 1635 E. Cedar Street Ontario, CA 91 7 61 Two corporate officer signatures required when Contractor is a corporation, with one signature required from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2) Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONTRACTOR'S SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTOR'S BUSINESS ENTITY. -25-A-26 01203.0006/300347.1 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 ofthe State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: ___________________ _ OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER D INDIVIDUAL 0 CORPORATE OFFICER D D D D D TITLE(S) PARTNER(S) D LIMITED D GENERAL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TRUSTEE(S) GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTHER _________________ _ SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: (NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)) 012010006/300347. I DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOClJMENT TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT --------------------- NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT --------=----------------- S!GNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE A-27 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 D INDIVIDUAL 0 CORPORATE OFFICER D D D D D ----------~-------- TITLE(S) PARTNER(S) D D LIMITED GENERAL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TRUSTEE(S) GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTHER _____________ _ SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: (NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)) 012030006/300347.1 DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT ---------------------·- NUMBER OF PAGES -----------------~----- DATE OF DOCUMENT ------------------ SJGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE A-28 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF WORK I. Contractor shall perform all of the work and comply \Vith all of the specifications and requirements in the "General Provisions" and "Special Provisions'' included in the bid documents for the project entitled BURMA ROAD TRAILHEAD GATK including any documents or exhibits referenced therein. H. Brief description of the work to be performed: In general, the work comprises without limitation, furnishing all necessary labor. materials, equipment and other incidental and appurtenant \Vork necessary to install fences and gates to secure main entry points at the Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve property, as more clearly described in the Contract Documents. This work \Vill be performed in strict conformance with the Contract Documents, permits from regulatory agencies with jurisdiction, and applicable regulations. III. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2, during performance ofthe work, Contractor will keep the City apprised ofthe status of performance by delivering the following status reports: A. Daily Reports B. Ce11ified Payroll IV. All work is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be revised by the Contractor without additional charge to the City until found satisfactory and accepted by City. V. Contractor shall provide safe and continuous passage for pedestrian and vehicular traffic in accordance with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH), latest edition. 012030006/300347.1 A-1 A-29 0120.10006/300347.1 EXHIBIT "B" SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (Superseding Contract Boilerplate) [INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 8-1 A-30 EXHIBIT "C" SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION I. Contractor shall perform all work at the rates on the Bid Sheet submitted as part of Contractor's Proposal, and listed below: Item Description Qty. Unit Unit Extended No. Meas Price Amount 1 Mobilization 1 LS $8,000 $8,000 2 Demolition: Remove old fence, 1 EA $8,210 $8,210 concrete footing, gate and haul away 3 8' High black wrought iron fence 40 LF $319 $12,760 4 7' x 8' double swing gate 2 EA $4,020 $8,040 - 5 5' x 8' swing gate with method to affix 1 EA $3,890 $3,890 open 6 8' Metal mesh 40 LF $98 $3,920 Locking Mechanism for vehicle swing 7 gate w/minimum of 7 different access 1 EA $2,460.00 $2,460.00 codes Install battery powered locks on 8 pedestrian gates with minimum of 7 1 EA $1 '130 $1 '130 distinct secured codes. Install gap at bottom of both fences for 9 wildlife movement. Location of gap to 1 EA $860 $860 be determined with City staff. TOTAL $49,270 II. A retention of five percent (5%) shall be held fi·om each payment as a contract retention to be paid as part of the final payment upon satisfactory completion of services. Ill. Within the budgeted amounts for each item on the Bid Sheet, and with the approval of the Contract Officer, funds may be shifted from one item's subbudget to another so long as the Contract Sum is not exceeded per Section 2.1, unless Additional Work is approved per Section 1.1 0. IV. The City will compensate Contractor for the Services performed upon submission of a valid invoice. Each invoice is to include: A. Line items for all personnel describing the work performed, the number of hours worked, and the hourly rate. B. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the Services. 012030006/300347.1 C-1 A-31 C. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting documentation. D. Line items for all approved subcontractor labor, supplies, equipment, materials, and travel properly charged to the Services. V. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed $49,270 as provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement. 01203.0006/300347. 1 C-2 A-32 EXHIBIT "D" SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE I. Contractor shall perform all work within twenty (20) working days starting on the Notice to Proceed date. Prior to the Notice to Proceed, the Contractor must submit a project schedule for approval: II. Contractor shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the following dates. A. Daily Rep01ts will be delivered to the City weekly. Daily Reports must be delivered and accepted prior to any progress payment up until the date that work is being invoiced for. B. Certified payroll will be delivered to the City biweekly. Certified payroll must be delivered and accepted prior to any progress payment up until the date that work is being invoiced for. III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services m accordance with Section 3.2. 012030006/300347.1 D-1 A-33 PERFORMANCE BOND WHEREAS, the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, ("City"), has awarded to work follows: entitled as Contractor ("Principal"), a Contract for the and described as ---------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the Contractor is required under the terms of said Contract to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of the Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, we the undersigned Contractor and Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City in the sum of ($ ), this amount being not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the total Contract price, lawful money of the United States of America, for payment of which sum well and truly be made we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, and successors, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. In case suit is brought upon this bond, the Surety will pay a reasonable attorney's fee to the City in an amount to be fixed by the court. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, if the hereby bound Contractor, or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns, shall in all things stand and abide by, well and truly keep and perform all undertakings, terms, covenants, conditions, and agreements in the said Contract and any alteration thereof, made as therein provided, all within the time and in the manner designated and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise it shall be anJ remain in full force and effect. FURTHER, the said Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or modification of the Contract Documents or of the work to be performed thereunder shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of such change, extension of time, alteration, or modification of the Contract Documents or of the work to be performed thereunder. Executed on ____________________________ 20 PRINCIPAL (Seal ifCorporation) By _______________________________ ___ Title -------------------------------- (Attach Acknowledgment of Authorized Representative of Principal) 012030006/3003471 D-1 A-34 Any claims under this bond may be addressed to: (name and address of Surety) (name and address of Surety's agent for service of process in California, if different from above) (telephone number of Surety's agent in California) (Attach Acknowledgment) SURETY By ______________________________ __ (Attorney-in-Fact) APPROVED: (Attorney for CITY) NOTICE: No substitution or revision to this bond form will be accepted. Sureties must be authorized to do business in and have an agent for service of process in California. Certified copy of Power of Attorney must be attached. 012030006/300347. I D-2 A-35 PAYMENT BOND (Labor and Material Bond) WHEREAS, the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, ("'City"), has awarded to work follows: entitled as Contractor ("Principal"), a Contract for the and described as ------------------------------------------------ WHEREAS, said Contractor is required to furnish a bond in conjunction with said Contract, to secure the payment of claims of laborers, mechanics, material men, and other persons as provided by law; NOW, THEREFORE, we the undersigned Contractor and Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City in the sum of ($ ), this amount being not less than one hundred percent (100%) ofthe total Contract price, lawful money of the United States of America, for payment of which sum well and truly be made we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, and successors, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. In case suit is brought upon this bond, the Surety will pay a reasonable attorney's fee to the City in an amount to be fixed by the court. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, if said Contractor, its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, assigns, or subcontractor fails to pay: (I) for any work, materials, services, provisions, provender, or other supplies, or for the use of implements of machinery, used in, upon, for, or about the performance of the work to be done, or for any work or labor thereon of any kind; (2) for work performed by any of the persons named in Civil Code Section 91 00; (3) for any amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed under the contract; and/or ( 4) for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of the Contractor and/or its subcontractors pursuant to Section 13020 of the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to such work and labor, then the Surety herein will pay for the same in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, otherwise the above obligation shall be void. This bond shall inure to the benefit of any of the persons named in Civil Code Section 9100 so as to give a right of action to such persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon the bond. Moreover, if the City or any entity or person entitled to file stop payment notices is required to engage the services of an attorney in connection with the enforcement of this bond, each shall be liable for the reasonable attorney's fees incurred, with or without suit, in addition to the above sum. Said Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or modification of the Contract Documents or of the work to be performed thereunder shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of such change, extension of time, alteration, or modification of the Contract Documents or of the work to be performed thereunder. 01203 0006 300347.1 A-36 Executed on ___________________________ ,20 __ _ PRINCIPAL (Seal ifCorporation) By ____________________________ _ Title _____________________________ _ (Attach Acknowledgment of Authorized Representative of Principal) Any claims under this bond may be addressed to: California) (Attach Acknowledgment) APPROVED: (Attorney for CITY) NOTICE: (name and address of Surety) (name and address of Surety's agent for service of process in California, if different from above) (telephone number of Surety's agent m SURETY By ____ ~-=~-------------------- (Attorney-in-Fact) No substitution or revision to this bond form will be accepted. Sureties must be authorized to do business in and have an agent for service of process in California. Certified copy of Power of Attorney must be attached. OJ20300(J6i300347.1 A-37 WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE CERTIFICATE Description of Contract: Type of Insurance: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Project: ________________________________________ __ Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Insurance THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following policy has been issued by the below-stated company in conformance vvith the requirements of Article 5 of the Contract and is in force at this time, and is in a form approved by the Insurance Commissioner. The Company will give at least 30 days' written notice to the City and Engineer/ Architect prior to any cancellation of said policy. POLICY NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE LIMITS OF LIABILITY Named Insured (Contractor) Street Number City and State 01203. 00063003.J7.1 Workers' Compensation: Statutory Limits Under the Laws of the State of California Employers' Liability: $ ____________ Each Accident $ ____________ Disease-Policy Limit $ ____________ Disease -Each Employee Insurance Company Street Number City and State By ____________________________ __ (Company Representative) (SEE NOTICE ON NEXT PAGE) A-38 Insurance Company Agent for Service of Process in California: Name Agency Street Number City and State Telephone Number This certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder. This certificate does not amend, extend, or alter the coverage afforded by the policy listed herein. This is to certify that the policy has been issued to the named insured for the policy period indicated, notwithstanding any requirement, term, or condition of any contract or other document with respect to which this certificate may be issued or may pertain, the insurance afforded by the policy described herein is subject to all the terms, exclusions, and conditions of such policy. NOTICE: No substitution or revision to the above certificate form will be accepted. If the insurance called for is provided by more than one insurance company, a separate certificate in the exact above form shall be provided for each insurance company. 01203.0006300347.1 A-39 ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY Name and address ofnamed insured ("Named Insured'') Name and address oflnsurance Company (''Company") General descnjJtion of agreement(s), permit{cl), license(s), and/or activity(ie.s) insured Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy to which this endorsement is attached (the "Policy") or in any endorsement now or hereafter attached thereto, it is agreed as follows: 1. The ____________________________________________________________ ___ ("Public Agency''), its elected officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, and volunteers are additional insureds (the above named additional insureds are hereafter referred to as the "Additional Insureds") under the Policy in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured. The Additional Insureds have no liability for the payment of any premiums or assessments under the Policy. 2. The insurance coverages afforded the Additional Insureds under the Policy shall be primary insurance, and no other insurance maintained by the Additional Insureds shall be called upon to contribute with the insurance coverages provided by the Policy. 3. Each insurance coverage under the Policy shall apply separately to each Additional Insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the limits of the Company's liability. 4. Nothing in this contract of insurance shall be construed to preclude coverage of a claim by one insured under the policy against another insured under the policy. All such claims shall be covered as third-party claims, i.e., in the same manner as if separate policies had been issued to each insured. Nothing contained in this provision shall operate to increase or replicate the Company's limits ofliability as provided under the policy. 5. The insurance afforded by the Policy for contractual liability insurance (subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions applicable to such insurance) includes liability assumed by the Named Insured under the indemnification and/or hold harmless provision(s) contained in or executed in conjunction with the written agreement(s) or pennit(s) designated above, between the Named Insured and the Additional Insureds. 6. The policy to which this endorsement is attached shall not be subject to cancellation, change in coverage, reduction of limits (except as the result of the payment of claims), or non-renewal except after written notice to Public Agency, by certified mail, return receipt requested, not less than thirty (30) days prior to the effective date thereof. In the event of Company's failure to comply with this notice provision, the policy as initially drafted will continue in full force and effect until compliance with this notice requirement. 7. Company hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Additional Insureds, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to the perils insured against in relation to those activities described generally above with regard 01203.0006 300347.1 A-40 to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by the Additional Insureds. 8. It is hereby agreed that the laws of the State of California shall apply to and govern the validity, construction, interpretation, and enforcement of this contract of insurance. 9. This endorsement and all notices given hereunder shall be sent to Public Agency at: City Manager, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275. 10. Except as stated above and not in cont1ict with this endorsement, nothing contained herein shall be held to waive, alter or extend any of the limits, agreements, or exclusions of the policy to which this endorsement is attached. TYPE OF COVERAGES TO WI IIC!l TI-llS ENDORSEMENT ArT ACHES POLICY PERIOD FROM/TO LIMITS OF LIABILITY 11. Scheduled items or locations are to be identified on an attached sheet. The following inclusions relate to the above coverages. Includes: o Contractual Liability o Owners/Landlords/Tenants o Manufacturers/Contractors o Products/Completed Operations o Broad Form Property Damage o Extended Bodily Injury o Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability Endorsement o Explosion Hazard o Collapse Hazard o Underground Property Damage o Pollution Liability o Liquor Liability o __________________________________ __ o __________________________________ __ o __________________________________ __ 12. A o deductible or o self-insured retention (check one) of$ __________________ __ applies to all coverage(s) except:---------------------------- (if none, so state). The deductible is applicable o per claim oro per occurrence (check one). 13. This is an o occurrence oro claims made policy (check one). 14. This endorsement is effective on ______________ at 12:0 I a.m. and forms a part of Policy Number _________ _ (signatures on following page) 012030006 300347.1 A-41 I, (print name), hereby declare under penalty of petj ury under the Jaws of the State of California, that I have the authority to bind the Company to this endorsement and that by my execution hereof, I do so bind the Company. Executed ______________________________ ,20 ________ _ Telephone No.: ( ____ __ OJ 203.0006300347. I Signature of Authorized Representative (Original signature only: nofacsimile signature or initialed signature accepted) A-42 ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY 11/ame and address of named insured (''Named Insured") Name and address oflnsurance Company ("Cmnpany ") General description of agreement(s), permit(s), licenseM, and/or activity(ies) insured Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the pol icy to which this endorsement is attached (the "Policy'') or in any endorsement now or hereafter attached thereto, it is agreed as follows: 1. The __________________________________________________________ __ ("'Public Agency"), its elected officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, and volunteers are additional insureds (the above named additional insureds are hereafter referred to as the ''Additional Insureds'') under the Policy in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured. The Additional Insureds have no liability for the payment of any premiums or assessments under the Policy. 2. The insurance coverages afforded the Additional Insureds under the Policy shall be primary insurance, and no other insurance maintained by the Additional Insureds shall be called upon to contribute with the insurance coverages provided by the Policy. 3. Each insurance coverage under the Policy shall apply separately to each Additional Insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the limits ofthe Company's liability. 4. Nothing in this contract of insurance shall be construed to preclude coverage of a claim by one insured under the policy against another insured under the policy. All such claims shall be covered as third-patiy claims, i.e., in the same manner as if separate policies had been issued to each insured. Nothing contained in this provision shall operate to increase or replicate the Company's limits ofliability as provided ,under the policy. 5. The insurance afforded by the Policy for contractual liability insurance (subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions applicable to such insurance) includes liability assumed by the Named Insured under the indemnification and/or hold harmless provision(s) contained or executed in conjunction with the written agreement(s) or permit(s) designated above, between the Named Insured and the Additional Insureds. 6. The policy to which this endorsement is attached shall not be subject to cancellation, change in coverage, reduction of limits (except as the result of the payment of claims), or non-renewal except after written notice to Public Agency, by cetiified mail, return receipt requested, not less than thirty (30) days prior to the effective date thereto. In the event of Company's failure to comply with this notice provision, the policy as initially drafted will continue in full force and effect until compliance with this notice requirement. 7. Company hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Additional Insureds, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to the perils insured against in relation to those activities described generally above with regard OJ 203.0006 3003-!7. I A-43 to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by the Additional Insureds. 8. It is hereby agreed that the laws of the State of California shall apply to and govern the validity, construction, interpretation, and enforcement of this contract of insurance. 9. This endorsement and all notices given hereunder shall be sent to Public Agency at: City Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 10. Except as stated above and not in conflict with this endorsement, nothing contained herein shall be held to waive, alter or extend any of the limits, agreements, or exclusions of the policy to which this endorsement is attached. TYPE OF COVERAGES TO WHICH THIS ENDORSEMENT ATTACHES POLICY PERIOD FROM/TO LIMITS OF LIABILIIT 11. Scheduled items or locations are to be identiiied on an attached sheet. The following inclusions relate to the above coverages. Includes: D Any Automobiles D Truckers Coverage D All Owned Automobiles D Motor Carrier Act D Non-owned Automobiles D Bus Regulatory Reform Act D Hired Automobiles D Public Livery Coverage D Scheduled Automobiles D D Garage Coverage D 12. A o deductible oro self-insured retention (check one) of$ ________ _ applies to all coverage(s) except: (if none, so state). The deductible is applicable o per claim or o per occurrence (check one). 13. This is an o occurrence oro claims made policy (check one). 14. This endorsement is effective on ____ at 12:01 a.m. and forms a part of Policy Number (signatures on following page) 0 I 103. 0006 3003471 A-44 I, (print name), hereby declare under penalty of pe1:jury under the laws of the State of California, that I have the authority to bind the Company to this endorsement and that by my execution hereof, I do so bind the Company. Executed _________________ , 20 Telephone No.:( __ _ 01203.0006 3003471 Signature of Authorized Representative (Original signature only; no facsimile signature or initialed signature accepted) A-45 ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT EXCESS LIABILITY Name and address of named insured ("Named Insured") Name and address of1nsurance Company ("Company") General description olagreement(s). permit(s'), license(\'), and/or activity(ies') insured Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy to which this endorsement is attached (the ''Policy'') or in any endorsement now or hereafter attached thereto, it is agreed as follmvs: 1. The __________________________________________________________ __ ("Public Agency"), its elected officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, and volunteers are additional insureds (the above named additional insureds are hereafter referred to as the ''Additional Insureds") under the Policy in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured. The Additional Insureds have no liability for the payment of any premiums or assessments under the Policy. 2. The insurance coverages afforded the Additional Insureds under the Policy shall be primary insurance, and no other insurance maintained by the Additional Insureds shall be called upon to contribute with the insurance coverages provided by the Policy. 3. Each insurance coverage under the Policy shall apply separately to each Additional Insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the Company's liability. 4. Nothing in this contract of insurance shall be construed to preclude coverage of a claim by one insured under the policy against another insured under the policy. All such claims shall be covered as third-party claims, i.e., in the same manner as if separate policies had been issued to each insured. Nothing contained in this provision shall operate to increase or replicate the Company's limits ofliability as provided under the policy. 5. The insurance afforded by the Policy for contractual liability insurance (subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions applicable to such insurance) includes liability assumed by the Named Insured under the indemnification and/or hold harmless provision(s) contained in or executed in conjunction with the written agreement(s) or permit(s) designated above, between the Named Insured and the Additional Insureds. 6. The policy to which this endorsement is attached shall not be subject to cancellation, change in coverage, reduction of limits (except as the result of the payment of claims), or non-renewal except after written notice to Public Agency, by ce1iified mail, return receipt requested, not less than thirty (30) days prior to the effective date thereto. In the event of Company's failure to comply with this notice provision, the policy as initially drafted will continue in full force and effect until compliance with this notice requirement. 7. Company hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Additional Insureds, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to the perils insured against in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by the Additional Insureds. ()J 203. (}(}06 300347. I A-46 8. It is hereby agreed that the laws of the State of California shall apply to and govern the validity, construction, interpretation, and enforcement of this contract of insurance. 9. This endorsement and all notices given hereunder shall be sent to Public Agency at: City Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 10. Except as stated above and not in conflict with this endorsement, nothing contained herein shall be held to waive, alter or extend any of the limits, agreements, or exclusions of the policy to which this endorsement is attached. TYPE OF COVERAGES TO WHICH THIS ENDORSEMENT ATTACIIES o Following Form o Umbrella Liability POLICY PERIOD FROM/TO o __________________________________ __ 11. Applicable underlying coverages: INSURANCF COMPANY LIMITS OF LIABILITY 12. The following inclusions, exclusions, extensions or specific provisions relate to the above coverages: ____________________________________________ _ 13. A o deductible oro self-insured retention (check one) of$ _________ _ applies to all coverage(s) except:--------------------------- (if none, so state). The deductible is applicable o per claim oro per occurrence (check one). 14. This is an o occurrence oro claims made policy (check one). 15. This endorsement is effective on ____ at 12:01 a.m. and forms a part of Policy Number __ _ 01203.0006·3003-17.1 A-47 (signatures on following page) I, (print name), hereby declare under penalty of pe1jury under the laws of the State of California, that I have the authority to bind the Company to this endorsement and that by my execution hereof, I do so bind the Company. Executed ______________ , 20 Telephone No.: ( __ _ 01203. 0006'3003-17.1 Signature of Authorized Representative (Original signature only; nofacsimile signature or initialed signature accepted) A-48 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Kat ie, SUNSH INE <sunshinerpv@aol.com > Sunday, August 30, 2020 8:18PM Katie Lozano ; Daniel Trautner CC; CityCierk I repeat. Re : What is the official "memorializa tion" of Dave Bradley's motion on last Tuesdays It em 3, Del Cerro Park? I am not a Trail Attorney so I ask the questions that I don 't have the answers to . I read what is in the various Staff Reports . For Sept. 1, nobody seems to know... What is the official "memoriali za tion" of Dave Bradley's motion on last Tuesdays Item 3, Del Cerro Park? ... S In a message dated 8/2 6/2 02 0 5:2 1:15 PM Pacific Standard T im e, KatieL @rpvca.gov writes: Hello Sunshine , Thank you for your email. Item C on the Sept. 1 st City Council agenda items is to award a construction contract in the amount of $49 ,270 to Metrocell Construction, Inc. for the installation of a Preserve access gate at the Burma Rd . access point into the Portuguese Bend Reserve . This gate has been publically vetted and was approved by the City Council in 2018, and unfortunately has been delayed until very recently . The gate will help control unauthorized access into the very popular Portuguese Bend Reserve . For clarification , while the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy did contribute financ ially to acquisition of Preserve lands , the vast majority of funding for Preserve land acquisition came from Federal, State, and local grant funding sources . I'd be happy to provide any info I can on the Trails Network Plan Update or Preserve Public Use Master Plan , or I can reach out to the Parks Master Plan project lead for questions on that document. I hope this is helpful. Thank you, Katie Lozano Senior Administrative Analyst /Open Space Manager Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 31 0-544-5267 katiel@rpvca .gov c . 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 gu idelines . 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: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday , August 26 , 2020 4:42 PM To: Daniel Trautner <DanieiT@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca .gov > Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca .gov> Subject: Fwd: What is the official "memorialization" of Dave Bradley's motion on last Tuesdays Item 3, Del Cerro Park? Hello Dan and Katie, "Last Tuesday's Council Meeting" was August 18, 2012. From a holistic point of view, what Charles Eder and Ron Dragoo have put on the Council's September 1, 2020 Agenda is pretty pitiful mostly from the point of view that neither actually discloses what the public funds will be spent on . Recommending actions just to "do something" even if it is counter-productive, unsustainable and/or just plain not thought out in a public forum is fraud, waste and abuse . Staff Time is public funds spent. My elected representatives should not be put in a position to have to vote No just to send Staff "back to the drawing board" and consume more "Staff Time". Planning the parking and preserve access is one issue which has been on Staff's "To Do List" ever since the City purchased the first large property and created The PV Preserve. By the way, that is something which was clearly stated in the original General Plan as something "the City" had no intention of investing in. PVPLC came up with most of the money but there are a lot of "strings attached". It is never too late to start documenting the parking and other "applies to more than just the Preserve property" restrictions which the City may or may not 2 have agreed to . PVPLC is a Sub -Contractor , not your Boss . You need to get your "facts" from a more reliable source. I keep asking and still have not found the Staff person who has been delegated the task of knowing and revealing all of the implications of the Staff level interpretations which come with implementing the City's Parks Master Plan, the Preserve Public Use Master Plan and the Trails Network Plan. It all appears to have landed with the Rec.& Parks Department except that you don't seem to know how to avail yourselves of, nor direct the skills and talents to be found in the Public Works Department, the Community Development Department, the Information Technology Department , the Finance Department and the Emergency Preparedness Coordinator. Sorry . I am "old school". Pointing out potential errors and omissions used to be considered "helpful". I do not mean to criticize you personally . However, "We're working on it" leaves me with the impression that you are not. And , the holistic information I have to to offer, is not welcome. Please write something which changes my impression and actually supports conflict resolution on the Palos Verdes Peninsula .... S 310-377-8761 From: sunshinerpv@aol.com To: terit@rpvca.gov Cc : David .Bradley@rpvca.gov Sent: 8/20/2020 3:26:38 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: What is the official "memorialization" of Dave Bradley's motion on last Tuesdays Item 3, Del Cerro Park? Hi Teri, 3 All this is ju st background to help you produce what I am looking for . The trick appears to be in the timing between when you produce the draft minutes and when Dan is supposed to produce some action . TNX .... S From: sunshinerpv@aol.com To: DanieiT@rpvca.gov Sent: 8/20/2020 3:00:18 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Still an issue. Re : Parks as trailheads and trails as non -moto ri zed connections between parks Hello Dan, How about you call me Sunshine and I won't call you Mr. Trautner. We have met on many occasions. We have just never had any occasions to talk about anything beyond how some PVIC Docent activities could become "living history" activities at both upper and lower Point Vicente Park . Now that that opportunity has been extinguished, I am back to being a "trails junkie". Come see . Six years of land movement makes it a different place . Since the "living history" opportunity has been. pretty much extinguished, I am offering my trails knowledge in support of emergency preparedness. Katie is locked in a box as defined by the City's Land Use Map OPEN SPACE- PRESERVATION . Matt is locked in a box as defined by the City's Zoning Map OPEN SPACE-RECREATION. Cory is silent. Ken and Jesse are new. Elias is gone. Ara obfuscates answers to questions and Councils Action Items . You have popped up as a potential insider player in the mix. I am just hoping you can connect the dots. Big step at "transparency". Did Ara write your reply for you? You avoided answering my question just like he does and you did not accept my invitation . So, how about this one? What is the official verbiage of the "action items" you and Katie have been tasked with? I heard Dave Bradley's Motion. Council's request that their directions be "memorialized" has become a rather sloppy "work in progress". We, the People, cannot point out potential omissions nor suggest options as solutions until we know Ara's interpretation of what the Council Moved and Approved . If you are not a party to a solution, you are a part of the problem .... S 310- 377 -8761 4 In a message dated 8/20 /2020 12 :39 :15 PM Pacific Standard Time , Dani elT @rp vca.gov writes: Still an issue. Re: Parks as trailheads and trails as non-motorized connections between parks Hello SUNSHINE , Thanks for reaching out. We have had the chance to meet. I came out to your property when I first started w ith the City in 2014 . I am working with Katie Lozano on the De l Cerro parking issue and Katie is the Department lead on the Nature Preserve. We are coming back to Council in the near future on several action items related to parking and preserve access . Thanks again, Daniel Trautner From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com > Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 12:27 PM To: Daniel Trautner <DanieiT@rpvca .gov > Subject: Parks as trailheads and trails as non -motorized connections between parks Hi Dan, Nice to see your name on an Agenda Report that relates to outside of a park site. We have never had a chance to sit down for a how we can work together chat. Maybe you can find the answer to this question . Who do you expect to pull together the Council's Action Item about proposing solutions to the imbalance of access to the City's Parks and Nature Reserves? 5 If you have no such expectation, read no further . If you may and are willing to come to my outdoor and otherwise safety compliant venue for a more in depth discussion , email me a date and ETA or, give me a call ... S 310 -377 -8761 *** The solution to the balance of nature is in the Trails Network Plan update public outreach process . Council has given the City Manager 60 days to come up with a response. Ara has been dodging it for 15 years. The Open Space Planning and Rec.& Parks Task Force was given their tasks before the RPV City Council majority became PVP Land Conservancy "rev ised Mission" advocates. The Task Force's Work Product died for lack of a Motion. The 50-year Contract with the PVPLC was s igned . The Planning Department became the Community Development Department and took control over the Public Works Department and the Rec.& Parks Department. Subsequent City Council Members have not been so supportive of a "pure green" future for RPV but, enforcement of new interpretations of the Brown Act have precluded everyone from being able to discuss the differences between "open space" for human health, safety and welfare versus "open space" for the health, safety and welfare of native "wildlife" and B iologists . Matt Waters is good at "losing documents" however, he may be able to turn up a copy of the Task Force's Work Product (2005). If not, I have a hard copy . Two years of work and more than monthly public meetings produced recommendations for balancing our residents' needs and wants. This work did influence the update of the Parks Master Plan. I st ill have not seen what Cory Linder meant by maintaining the Parks Master Plan as a "living document". How all this gets implemented into a balance among the various departments' isolated responsibilities is now back in the hands of the Rec .& Parks Department. The RPV Trails Network Plan is the glue which holds the human side of Paradise together. What the TNP update is missing most urgently is input from the Fire Department which James O'Neill, Public Works, Wildfire Management and Jesse Villalponda, City Manager's Office, Emergency Preparedness, are tasked with in separate and more focused Council Action Items . 6 Without new "narratives" for the conceptual trails (on private property) which are now, shall we say, "real trails" on City property , our progression of Directors of the Public Works Department have been able to claim that the PVPLC is supposed to tell him what to "maintain". Without new narratives, the recreational and emergency circulation needs are not being considered in the Landslide Remediation Engineering Project, the Altamira Canyon Repair Engineering Project and the Portuguese Bend Area Emergency Evacuation Plan. The rest of the City and our neighboring Cities are also suffering from this isolation of parks. In particular, the City Planners are not effectively negotiating Irrevocable Offers of Trail Easements because the Trails Network Plan has not been updated with engineered "ideal routes" for the existing/conceptual trails which cross multiple undeveloped lots . The big direction decision which has not been presented to Council, specifically is ... Should the Trails Network Plan aim to preserve and enhance the most off-road circulation opportunities (General Plan) or, should human circulation be minimized to preserve and enhance native habitat (Natural Communities Conservation Plan , NCCP)? Ara may have discussed this with our current TNP Update Consultant, but, whatever level of "balance" was agreed upon has not been shared with the public . We have paid for a year's worth of the Consultant's time and we still don't know if the impacts of the level of balance chosen are going to be acceptable. In isolation, you and Katie's Del Cerro Park vs. Gateway Park conundrum is unsolvable. I repeat: Who do you expect to pull together the Council's Action Item about proposing solutions to the imbalance of access to the City's Parks and Nature Reserves? I am happy to share my knowledge of the tools you have to work with . Without a clear statement of the balanced objective, no amount of wordsmithing and engineering is going to get anything except habitat enhanced and preserved. It is not just my home which cannot be adequately hardened against a wildfire and adequately protected from invading tourists . 7 8 - From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com> Friday, August 28, 2020 4:58 PM CC; CityCierk September 1, 2020 Council Consent Calendar Items C, D, E & H Follow up Completed Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council, I deleted the following sentence from the following email chain with Ron Dragoo. "Since you have no respect for my elected representatives, I have no respect for you." As long as the five persons seated at the dais continue to Move and Approve Staff's Recommendations, be they to "receive and file" or to spend public funds, Staff will continue to disrespect you. I commend your recent efforts to get Staff to "memorialize" your more specific directions. Making that happen is going to take a lot more effort on your part. Staff is still not providing an analysis of the "downside of voting No". Staff is not providing an analysis of the "downside of voting Yes". Mostly, Staff is not putting the big decisions onto your Agendas. Even worse, Staff is not availing themselves of other departments' and the public's specialized knowledge. Case in point. You asked our Open Space Manager for our parking enforcement recovery rate. Well, she was presenting the Staff Recommendation about parking control. Nobody else on Zoom had the answer, either, and, you all just moved forward without the pertinent data. Here is another suggestion which will probably vanish into the black hole known as cc@rpvca.gov. If Staff has not withdrawn them prior to opening this Agenda Item, somebody, make a motion to not approve the Staff Recommendations on Consent Calendar Items C, D, E and H. 1 It is not just Ron Dragoo's fault. (Item E.) He is simply the Engineer who has been working for the City the longest and has managed to point fingers at other people when his part of implementing the City's General Plan turns out to be fatally incomplete. OMG. Katie didn't know to ask and Ron did not look into the "justifications" required for painting red curbs. Guess what? No red curbs by September 1 . Charles Eder's Staff Report (Item C) does not include the SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (Superseding Contract Boilerplate). Details are To Be Determined (TBD) by "Staff'. No detailed Plans, no opportunity for Engineering type citizens to notice errors and omissions. Item D. Our "on call" engineering has not yet produced any designs which the "special interest" public has been able to comment on prior to completed schematics. Cut the purse strings until Staff gets more "transparent". Item H. The nasty stands of acacias and view blocking eucalyptus on City property which I brought to the Council's attention on May 5 are still there. Code Enforcement came and took a lot of pictures. Receive and File means that Staff gets to keep on not doing whatever they are not doing other than consuming Staff Time on generating "reports". Either way, I'm still hoping for some sort of Community Services Director to pull it all together to present to some sort of Infrastructure and Activities Commission. Your volunteer time is too valuable to be wasted on asking Staff questions which they are not prepared to answer. Have a lovely weekend .... S 310-377-8761 Subject: Something of an apology and a really big question Date: 8/28/2020 1:36 38 PM Pacific Standard Time From: sunshinerpv@aol.com To: rond@rpvca.gov Sent from the Internet (Details) Dear Mr. Dragoo, 2 I am so incredibly frustrated by RPV Staff's lack of communication both with the public and among yourselves. You have been a party to so many "debacles" that I blew my top at seeing you facilitating another one. The parking problem at Del Cerro Park has been created by a series of isolated actions and non- actions in various departments despite the best efforts of Council and the public. The Public Works Department has never been managed as a part of a "team effort". Now that the City has acquired a lot of "open space" acreage, it is the Public Works Department's responsibility to maintain the Category I trails and facilitate enhancing the Category Ill trails into Category I. As a PE, you have the skill to do this. As the City's Senior Engineer, Council is expecting you to "preserve and enhance" the City's "corporate memory". Your Staff Report on our Open Space Manager's Recommendation to prohibit parking along Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd. is an obfuscation of the Council's direction to propose a "holistic solution" to the problems created by the premature announcement to the world that RPV has wonderful trails which are open to the public. As then Mayor Duhovic pointed out, Staff "got the cart in front of the horse". My frustration is in that Staff has done nothing to mitigate the adverse impacts. The "Notify Me" program is in place so that Staff can invite the public, with "special interests", to participate in the early-on research and decision making which creates a project's scope of work. The ListServ Notices of 8/26/2020 and 8/27/2020 are particularly onerous because they were sent out after the "work" was decided, no specific Staff Member was identified as the person who has the answers to questions and the notices were not sent to the people who have subscribed to the potentially impacted categories. Helping out our I MAC, our Trails Network Plan Update Contract Officer, our Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, our City Planners, our Open Space Manager and the rest of our City Manager's non-engineer type employees should not be such an absurd notion. Our City is functioning on a deferred maintenance program and all that benefits is a butterfly and a bird. "Tread lightly" benefits us all. That starts with carefully balanced engineering. You are a Professional Engineer. The City Council is your Client. Before you pay someone to put pen to paper, it is your responsibility to document your Client's choice of two out of the three elements in the Tension Triangle. 3 My apology goes ... I am not sorry that I stepped on your toes. I am profoundly sorry that your toes were there. Watching my language means that I have to use bigger words and refer to bigger concepts. Like I said . I am frustrated. I sent you a YES or NO question and you did not answer it. So, come September 1, 2020, will you, James O'Neill and Charles Eder have anything to add to your Consent Calendar Items C, 0, E and H which give the Council the opportunity to Move and Approve holistically engineered solutions to the inadequately designed trails and trail heads on City owned properties and easements all over the City? S in cerely, A concerned Citizen SUNSHINE 6 Limetree Lane Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275 Subject: Maintenance Work in Portuguese Bend Reserve Date : 8/27/2020 9:46:35 AM Pacific Standard Tim e From: listserv@civ icplus.com To: sunshinerp v@ao l.com Sent from the Int ernet (Detai ls) <The City is coordinating utility infrastructure maintenance with SoCa l Edison in the Portuguese Bend Reserve start ing August 27th-September 91h. Temporary trail closures may take place as needed . However, for the majority of the work, trails will remain open to the public. Please check trailalerts.rpvca.gov for up to date information on trail c lo sures. Thank you for your patience and cooperat ion during this work. For more information, please contact Open Space Management at trails@rpvca.gov or 310-544- 5353. > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of a "Not ify Me" Listserv category you are signed up for . Please do not press "rep ly" when responding to this message , it is an unmon itored ema il address. You can make changes to your subscription by visit ing http://www .rpvca .gov/list.aspx . 4 You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Palos Verdes Nature Preserve on www.rpvca.gov. To unsubscribe, click the following link: Unsubscribe Subject: Re: TEMPORARY PARKING PROHIBITION ALONG CRENSHAW BLVD. SOUTH OF CREST RD. Date: 8/26/2020 6:18:56 PM Pacific Standard Time From: sunshinerpv@aol.com To: RonD@rpvca.gov Sent from the Internet (Details) Hey Ron, I got over making nice with you years ago. Apparently I still have not gotten your attention. Hmmmmmm. What shall I try next. There must be a way to get you to put on your "Senior Engineer hat" and contract for a quality project on behalf of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. "It is not in the Budget" was never a valid excuse .... S In a message dated 8/26/2020 6:08: 19 PM Pacific Standard Time, RonD@rpvca.gov writes: Watch your language please! Ron Dragoo, PE City Engineer From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 4:58 PM To: Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: TEMPORARY PARKING PROHIBITION ALONG CRENSHAW BLVD. SOUTH OF CREST RD. Hey Ron, 5 If you haven't got the balls to put your name and direct phone number on a list serve notice, the least you should do is direct the public to a real person. Rude email to follow .... S In a message dated 8/26/2020 4:18:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, listserv@civicplus.com writes: View this in your browser On August 18, 2020, the City Council in considering measures to mitigate traffic impacts surrounding the residences in the area of Del Cerro Park and the Portuguese Bend Reserve moved to, among other things, to temporarily prohibit parking along Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd . for an initial period of 60 days . On September 1, the City Council will consider adopting a resolution to formalize this motion which will go into effect on September 2, 2020. Click here to view the September 1, 2020 City Council Staff Report https://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer. php?view id =5&event id=1672&meta id =857 45 For questions or comments , please contact Public Works at 310 -544-5252 or publicworks@rpvca .gov . Thank you! ************************************************* This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of a "Notify Me" Listserve category you are s igned up for. Please do not press "rep ly" when responding to this message , it is an unmon ito red email address . You can make changes to your subscription by vis it ing http://www .rpvca.gov/l ist.aspx. You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Breaking News on www.rpvca.gov . To unsubscribe, click the following link: Unsubscribe 6 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Monday, August 31, 2020 2:59PM CityCierk FW: 9-01-20 Consent Calendar Item D From: jeanlongacre@aol.com <jeanlongacre@aol.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 2:54PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: 9-01-20 Consent Calendar Item D Dear City Council, I am opposed to renewing the contract with Ardurra for on-call engineering Services. Personally, I have found it difficult to communicate with their project manager, Bob Merrel, The staff report states that the PVDE Safety Project has been temporarily suspended pending approval of the contract with Ardurra because of Mr. Merrel's knowledge of the project. Surely there are other engineering companies who could handle the project, maybe even one with their head office in California. Sincerely, Jean Longacre 6 Martingale Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 31 0-544-01 05 CC: City Clerk City Manager D. From: Sent: To: Subject: From: Cheri Bailiff Cheri Bailiff Thursday, August 27, 2020 5:18 PM CityCierk FW: Public Comment, City Council Meeting, Sept 1, Consent Agenda, Item C Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 11:53 AM To: 'BRIAN WHITIEN' <brianwhitten1965@msn.com>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Public Comment, City Council Meeting, Sept 1, Consent Agenda, Item C Thank you for the email. This will be included as late correspondence for the September 1, 2020 City Council meeting. From: BRIAN WHITIEN <brianwhitten1965@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 11:48 AM To: Cheri Bailiff <Cherib@rpvca.gov>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Public Comment, City Council Meeting, Sept 1, Consent Agenda, Item C I opposed the City's plan to spend $50K to build an 8ft black iron gate and fence at the Burma Road Trailhead. Is after-hour use of the Preserve really a problem? I doubt it. Even it were a problem, an ugly fence will not solve it. The fence will be an eyesore, a maintenance problem, and it wont keep people out of the Preserve. 1 c. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Ms. Mclaughlin, Katie Lozano Thursday, August 27, 2020 6:05 AM Donna Mclaughlin CityCierk RE: parking near Del Cerro Thank you for your email. I have shared it with the project management team for inclusion of our analysis of parking solutions near the Portuguese Bend and Filiorum Reserve trail heads. I recommend calling the LA County Sheriff Lomita Station non-emergency line at 310-539-1661. They are the primary agency responsible for parking enforcement in the City. I would also recommend calling the Preserve Info and Reporting Line (310-541-5775). This line goes directly to our Park Rangers who cite for vehicles illegally parked as they enter the Preserve for their patrol. In some cases, they may be able to get there faster. Thank you, Katie Lozano Senior Administrative Analyst/Open Space Manager Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5267 katiel@rpvca.gov 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. -----Original Message----- From: Donna Mclaughlin <ddmclaughlin@cox.net> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 9:04 PM To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: parking near Del Cerro I am a frequent hiker at Del Cerro. I am a resident of RPV and have been hiking Portuguese Bend Preserve for over 20 years. Parking for residents has been taken away on Crenshaw and the parking on Park Place (for those of us that have taken the time to get parking permits) is sometimes full as people with NO permits are parking there. This small parking area is limited and those of us with permits cannot find parking there sometimes. Is there a phone number to call to report violators? Or, do we just call the Sheriff? I would also like to request that some parking spots on Crenshaw be put back for residents with permits (with the black and white striped lane). Residents that frequent the hiking trails at Portuguese Bend Preserve need more spots to park in. 1 E· Thank you. Donna Mclaughlin 310/377-1620 RPV resident 2 - From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Mr. Whitten, Katie Lozano Thursday, August 27 , 2020 10:50 AM brianwhitten 1965@msn .com CC; CityCi erk FW: Public Comment, City Council Meeting, Sept 1, Consent Item E Thank you for your email. While the 1,400-acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve is open to all of the public, the key issue the City is trying to address is the concentration of visitors (and resulting traffic) in one specific location: Crenshaw Blvd., south of Crest Rd. This location is the only parking and access area for the City's most popular of the 12 Nature Reserve properties: the Portuguese Bend Reserve. This area is also the primary access point for the Filiorum Reserve and Del Cerro Park. When the City created the Preserve, it never anticipated its current level of use . Use and popularity have increased exponentially due to social media, and more recently, after LA County lifted Covid -19 -related trail closure orders. The Portuguese Bend and Filiorum Reserve see more than 240,000 visitors annually, and as a parking and staging area, was never designed to handle this level of use. This is creating severe impacts to the residential neighborhoods literally surrounding the parking area . During the 60-day parking prohibition, parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve would continue to be available on Crenshaw Blvd . north of Crest Rd., and staff has been directed to return to City Council at the end of the 60 -day period with longer term solutions for this area. Parking for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve also exists at the other eleven reserve properties (links to trail maps below). An effort the City is engaged in, is recommending the public visit Nature Preserve properties that have dedicated parking areas and amenities suited for larger crowds, such as the Alta Vicente Reserve at the Ci v ic Center. Unfortunately, and largely due to social media, the public views the Portuguese Bend Reserve as the front door to the larger 1,400-acre Preserve, and is not aware of most of the other eleven reserve properties, including Alta Vicente with its trails, active habitat restoration areas, coastal views, and linkages to two adjacent Reserves and parks . Please feel free to reach out to me directly if I can provide any additional information. http://www.rpvca.gov/1148/Nature-Reserve-Jnformation-Traii-Maps Thank you, Katie Lozano Senior Administrative Analyst/Open Space Manager Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5267 katiel@rpvca.gov 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 . 1 E. From: BRIAN WHITIEN <brianwhitten1965@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 9:46AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Public Comment, City Council Meeting, Sept 1, Consent Item E I disagree with the City's plan to ban all parking on Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Road. I live nearby and have been visiting Del Cerro Park and the trails in the Preserve for more than 20 years. I'm fotiunate enough to be able to walk to the Preserve. Yes, more and more people are visiting the Preserve. Good for them! It's open to the public and Crenshaw Blvd offers convenient parking that is NOT inside anybody's neighborhood. Let's remember that the Preserve was funding mostly by State funds and that the Preserve is there for ALL the public to enjoy. not just those of us fortunate to live nearby. Based upon my personal observations over the years. I believe the complaints of traffic/noise/trash are exaggerated. It seems to me that some local residents want to keep "outsiders" from visiting the Preserve via the Burma Road. This is selfish and wrong. There is no problem with people parking on Crenshaw south of Crest. The Road is wide enough to accommodate street parking. Pushing people to park farther away is just a way to inconvenience them in an etfoti to deter them from coming. The effoti to get visitors to park at City Hall is also unreasonable and misguided. People don't want to walk on the trails around City Hall. They want to walk on the Burma Trail. They should be able to continue to park safely on Crenshaw Blvd. This is really just an effort driven by local residents to keep non-residents away. Sincerely. Brian Whitten 2 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 1:31 PM CityCierk Subject: FW: Parking Restriction on Crenshaw S of Crest Late corr From: Tom Chargaff <tombarchar@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 1:25 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Parking Restriction on Crenshaw S of Crest Honorable Mayor & Council Members, We support the adoption of temporary (or not so temporary) restriction of parking along Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest which you will be considering at your meeting on September 1st. Thank you. Thomas & Barbara Chargaff 31267 Ganado Drive RPV 1 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mr. Mihranian , Tom Irish <tg irish@aol.com > Monday, August 31, 2020 2:16PM Ara Mihranian; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; David Brad ley; Ken Dyda; Barbara Ferraro CityCierk RE: Extreme ly Dangerous Parking Proposal Confirming receipt of your response. I fear you are creating a truly great hazard this Labor Day weekend. Movies closed , indoor dining closed , sports events closed , very hot temperatures forecast --large numbers of hikers are lik ely to be out next weekend , and this parking relocation after decades of parking south of Crest wi ll be a mess. I would postpone this temporary action if I were the Council. Sure seems lik e a recipe for disaster that could be easi ly averted . Tom --------Original message -------- From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Date : 8/31 /20 1:13PM (GMT-08:00) To: "'tgirish@ aol.com"' <tgirish@ aol.com>, John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank @ rpvca.gov>, Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@ rpvca.gov>, David Bradley <david.bradley @ rpvca.gov>, Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>, Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro @ rpvca.gov> Cc: CityC lerk <CityC lerk@ rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Extremely Dangerous Parking Proposal Mr . Irish, The City is in receipt of your email and thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with parking on Crenshaw Blvd. north of Crest Road. You raise some legitimate concerns that I have asked the City engineers to look into . The parking prohibition on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Road is temporary (60 days) while the City explores a parking program for this stretch of the roadway. This matter is tentatively scheduled to be considered by the City Council on October 20. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian 1 c. City Manager C ITY OF 30940 Hawthorne Blvd . Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 31 0-544-5202 (telephone) 31 0-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended reop1ent, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: tgirish@aol.com <tgirish@aol.com > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 9:22AM To: John Cruikshank <John .Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <E ric.Aiegria@rpvca .gov>; David Bradley <david .bradley@rpvca .gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.go v >; Barbara Ferraro <barbara .ferraro@rpvca .gov > Cc: Ara Mihranian <Ara M@rpvca .go v > Subject: Extremely Dangerous Parking Proposal 2 City Council Members: As a longtime RPV resident, I am writing to express my concern about the hazardous conditions presented by the pending change to parking on Crenshaw Boulevard near Crest Road. I have lived in this neighborhood for over 25 years, and I truly believe that what is being proposed will create an extremely dangerous condition --one that will put lives at danger. The proposed change will move parking on Crenshaw north of Crest Road, rather than allowing it south of Crest Road (which is currently permitted). That creates an extraordinarily dangerous condition for the following reasons: -The portion of Crenshaw Boulevard to which parking is being redirected is a northbound two-lane road with a 45-MPH speed limit, fairly steep grade, limited vision due to the S-curve configuration, and a much drive area than south of Crest. -The initial portion of the road has a metal barrier which will make it nearly impossible for occupants of vehicles to exit the passenger's side. Even if they can, they will then need to climb over this barrier to get to the sidewalk. -Since getting out of the passenger's side is difficult, this will force many people (in addition to the drivers) to exit on the driver's side--right into the two-lane, narrow, downhill, S-curved, heavily trafficked street. Many of the people parking in this area are going to Del Cerro Park or Burma Road trails, accompanied by children and/or dogs, often with strollers. This change puts them into direct danger from vehicles speeding down Crenshaw. -While conditions are currently unusual due to COVID, this change becomes even more hazardous once conditions begin to normalize. The CresUCrenshaw intersection is highly-trafficked under normal conditions. Due to its proximity to Ridgecrest Intermediate and Peninsula High Schools, the intersection is very busy in the mornings--when many people may be parking on Crenshaw to go to the park or trails. Again, this creates a potentially deadly combination: People making U-turns on Crenshaw (as currently directed to do so via the parking signs), exiting their vehicles on the driver's side, with an abundance of cars --including many driven by new, teenage drivers, rushing off to school --racing immediately alongside them. -Similarly, Sunday is a busy day for park and trail users. A similar condition will exist when parishioners from St. John Fisher are exiting mass on Sunday mornings when the people are exiting their vehicles on the driver's side down this narrow, curvy, sloped, visually-impaired street. In summary, I don't know if a more hazardous change could be proposed for this area, and worry first about the safety of drivers/pedestrians, but also about the City's liability for creating this potentially deadly condition. I strongly urge you to reconsider this issue, and am happy to meet you at the location to show you my concerns. I am not an activist--just a highly-concerned, longtime resident who wants to prevent a tragedy from occurring. I implore you to postpone this change and keep your residents and visitors safe. Respectfully, 3 Tom Irish 6002 Ocean Terrace Drive Rancho Palos Verdes 4 From: Sent: To: Cheri Bailiff on behalf of Phone-PW-Main Monday, August 31, 2020 12:31 PM CityCierk Subject: FW: Abrupt Closure of Crenshaw Blvd. to Parking-Late Correspondence From: jtfives@ca.rr.com <jtfives@ca.rr.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 12:24 PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Cc: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Abrupt Closure of Crenshaw Blvd. to Parking Although I have been a trail watch volunteer with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy for the past 2 1/2 years, I am writing this as an individual. Last Wednesday, August 26, I had just completed a two-hour trail watch hike up and down the steep trails of the Three Sisters Reserve. I decided to drive to the trailheads for Rattlesnake Canyon and Portuguese Bend to check them out. Much to my dismay as soon as I had turned south onto Crenshaw from Crest Dr. I encountered a traffic trailer flashing the warning that as of September 1 RPV was painting the curb red and prohibiting parking. I must have missed that issue on the city council agenda because this was the first I had heard of it. I had not seen any notices or requests for public input before your taking such arbitrary and abrupt action to keep the public out of the area. During the past 2 1/2 years I have hiked these trails frequently on behalf of the PVPLC and RVP to monitor trail conditions, assess erosion damage, report vandalism, assist the public, and lead visitors on excursions. During the lengthy shutdown this spring, I walked this area in the rain, fog, and now heat on the paved streets to check the security ofthe trail closures. Each time I parked legally on Crenshaw Blvd. Now I risk my vehicle being impounded and towed away for trying to access the nature reserves. During this time I was operating under the naive assumption that I was doing some good for both RVP and the PVPLC. Now I realize that I was actually wasting my time if the public, and I, are barred from accessing the nature reserves. Am I supposed to park illegally in the Peninsula Center's parking structure and hike a mile up Crenshaw Blvd. to the trailheads? The steepest part of Crenshaw Blvd. lacks a sidewalk and exposes a pedestrian to speeding cars. It is not safe for an able-bodied hiker let alone for the elderly, children, or those with disabilities. What happened to the Americans with Disabilities Act? I am appalled that you people would act so abruptly without public input. J. Timothy Fives 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Cheri Bailiff Monday, August 31, 2020 7:41 AM CityCierk FW: Del Cerro Park/Portuguese Bend Reserve-Late correspondence Follow up Completed From: sharondyer3 <sharondyer3@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 4:54 PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Del Cerro Park/Portuguese Bend Reserve Public Input for the 9/1/2020 RPV City Council Meeting: I was surprised and saddened to learn the City Council is once again contemplating taking additional measures to further restrict public access to the reserve. We are frequent visitors of the area, which we have enjoyed over the years and always treated with respect and gratitude. When the City previously decided to prohibit visitor parking in Del Cerro parking lot the timing was on the heels of the Super Bloom which had brought in an unprecedented number of visitors. The area made front page news and attracted huge tour buses. It was understandable that the local residents were upset. But sadly decisions were made based these abnormal conditions. Once the bloom died off and the swarms of tourists evaporated we have watched the parking lot sitting virtually empty every time we have come to enjoy the trails. I encourage the City Council to further study the wasteful parking results of the first round ofrestrictions at Del Cerro before contemplating further restrictive measures to prohibit the public from enjoying this beautiful area. Cordially, Sharon Dyer (. From: Sent: To: Cheri Bailiff Monday, August 31, 2020 7:42 AM CityCierk Subject: FW: TEMPORARY PARKING PROHIBITION ALONG CRENSHAW BLVD. SOUTH OF CREST RD.Late Correspondence Attachments: TEMPORARY PARKING PROHIBITION ALONG CRENSHAW BLVD. SOUTH OF CREST RD. Importance: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: High Follow up Completed From: varnerpv@gmail.com <varnerpv@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2020 11:07 AM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Cc: 'Linda Varner' <varnerpv@gmail.com> Subject: TEMPORARY PARKING PROHIBITION ALONG CRENSHAW BLVD. SOUTH OF CREST RD. Importance: High As a long-time resident of Rancho Palos Verdes and also as a multi-year volunteer for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, I am surprised and saddened by the very irresponsible and rash action that you have taken to temporarily prohibit parking along Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd. for an initial period of 60 days. The current surge of hikers and walkers is obviously due to the restrictions on people's social actions during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Everyone's options regarding outdoor activities are very limited. Thus, the increased foot traffic throughout the preserve and in Del Cerro Park. The crowds will virtually disappear once COVID is no longer the threat it is today. Meanwhile, the "KIND" thing to do-as well as the ethically and morally "RIGHT" thing to do is allow people access to the open spaces, so they have a wholesome outlet. I will be seeking legal advice regarding the legality of your current parking prohibitions. Dr. Linda L. Varner (. From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Cheri Bailiff Monday, August 31, 2020 7:50AM CityCierk FW: Restrictions on Parking at Del Cerro park Follow up Completed From: Diane Yowell Montalto <rondiane@earthlink.net> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2020 12:37 PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Cc: rmontalto@earthlink.net Subject: Restrictions on Parking at Del Cerro park To: RPV Public Works I was informed by a fellow resident that RPV is planning to temporarily restrict parking for Del Cerro Park in order to study "traffic mitigation". I cannot find anything on the RPV website about this, but am writing to express my opposition to any move that would further restrict the public's enjoyment of the PV Land Conservancy Preserve. The residents near Del Cerro are understandably concerned with traffic near their homes but that concern seemed to have been handled well by restricting visitors to parking on Crenshaw? Are more restrictions beyond this being considered? What is the issue? I live in Rolling Hills and am not affected by parking and traffic around Del Cerro. But I strongly believe that this preserve should be open and easily accessible to non-PVP residents. I spend a lot of time hiking in the preserve and seeing more people enjoy this space has been a pleasure. These are difficult times for many people and spending time in nature is a healthy outlet for frustration. Please let me know where I can find more information about any upcoming restrictions on parking and access to the Preserve. Sincerely Diane Montalto From: Cheri Bailiff Sent: To: Monday, August 31, 2020 7:51 AM CityCierk Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: FW: Parking at Del Cerro Follow up Completed From: miguel castaneda <mev.castaneda@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2020 3:43 PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Parking at Del Cerro I disagree with no allowing parking at Del Cerro park ( crenshew). I think the public should have reasonable means to access public parks. Not just the people who live close by. Just like any other park in California. Miguel Castaneda. 1 E· From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Cheri Bailiff Monday, August 31, 2020 7:51 AM CityCierk FW: Parking near Del Cerro Follow up Completed From: Sharon Benton <s@bentonclan.com> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2020 8:05 PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Parking near Del Cerro Hello, I am a resident of Palos Verdes and I completely disagree with the new ordinance that does not allow people to park along the top of Crenshaw to use the public trails. This is not going to stop people from using the trails. In my opinion, this is going to cause people to park further down Crenshaw or onto Crest or in the Church parking. People are still going to walk to hike the trails which are for public use. This will only move people into neighborhoods to park their cars. Unless the trails are private property, which they are not, the neighbors don't have a right to regulate who uses them. Especially when it is preventing the local residents from using them as well as anyone else. I have been hiking that trail since I moved here 20 years ago. My sons have used those trails for local boy scout hikes and orienteering merit badges. The parking lot below at the (public) park has already been restricted to residents of the area. The area down Crenshaw Blvd that is now going to be restricted does not belong to the homes and the people that live in the surrounding neighborhoods. How is it ok to allow a small group of RPV residents to dictate where the rest of PV is allowed to park for a public trail? This parking ordinance is very disappointing. Please consider allowing the public to continue to use the trails. Especially during this time when people are desperate to find outdoor exercise and enjoyment. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sharon THE AGENCY A Globallv1arl<eting and Sales Organization SHARON UMANSI\Y BENTON Estates />,gent t: +1 424 400 59431 m: 310 383 5455 TheAgencyRE.com CaiBRE# 02021318 1 f, From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Cheri Bailiff Monday, August 31, 2020 7:51 AM CityCierk FW: Disagree with Eliminating Parking at Del Cerro Follow up Completed From: Jacqueline Morley <jackie.morleyS@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2020 8:24 PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Disagree with Eliminating Parking at Del Cerro I am respectfully requesting that you review your proposed policy to eliminate parking at Del Cerro. These are public trails and public streets. We should all be allowed to use them. I believe all relevant laws can still be adequately enforced .... everyone should stay off of private property, drive carefully and within the speed limits, and not play loud music. Hoiwever, I reiterate these are public trails and public streets. I grew up in RPV, my extended family lives in RPV, and many friends live in RPV. We all agree .... keep the parking available to the extended community. These trails are important for the mental and physical health of your residents and you should not deter people who do not live in this particular block/neighborhood from trying to use them. Thanks for your consideration. Jackie Morley s. From: Cheri Bailiff Sent: To: Monday, August 31, 2020 7:52 AM CityCierk Subject: FW: Die cerro parking-Late Correspondence Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Completed From: Frank Sanic <rusty2all@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 5:33AM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Die cerro parking Hi we just like you to know that we been using this traial for years, families been using trails for a good time, we please ask you to assign new parking ifu need to close the one on Crenshaw, we need more parking not less, so please take this under consideration. Thank you 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Cheri Bailiff Monday, August 31, 2020 7:53 AM CityCierk FW: Del Cerro access/parking Follow up Completed From: Teri Hogan <thogan401@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 6:47AM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Del Cerro access/parking I am a 15 year resident of PVE and frequent user of the trails near Del Cerro Park, I am appalled to learn about the upcoming parking prohibition. I live in Lunada Bay where currently we are working on a beautification project to encourage people to come and enjoy the surrounding beauty. The residents near the Del Cerro Park do not own the park or the trails. Trying to keep people away by making the parking harder will not work, It will only make for more congestion and more traffic. Rather than continuing to reduce access to this beautiful PUBLIC space, you should explore ways to increase parking. Head in parking on the wide street and more parking in the park itself are a couple of ideas. As for the permit issue, why do residents get a FREE permit to park on public property in the first place? A free permit to park on property that the residents don't even maintain? The people who donate to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy pay to maintain this land. These are the very people you are trying to keep out. I donate to the PVPLA I am incensed and I say shame on you. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy purchased the land for the Portuguese Bend Preserve? Many residents of the hill, not just those who live in RPV, donated money, time, and expertise to create an "open space for all". It is our responsibility to allow access to the public space within our communitys and there is ample space for parking and shared use. Teri Hogan [. From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: -----Original Message----- Cheri Bailiff Monday, August 31, 2020 7:57 AM CityCierk FW: That's just not right! Follow up Completed From: Karen E <dnkew@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2020 9:17PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: That's just not right! I am writing to you to share my deep concern at the upcoming changes in parking near Del Cerro Park. It seems so incredibly unjust to limit access to this beautiful spot in this way. You are effectively making it so people have to park at least a 1/2 mile away to spend time here--never mind that with the number of visitors, there could effectively be no available parking. I live in the beach cities. Can you imagine the beach cities limiting parking such that people could not park within a 1/2 mile of the beach ... thereby effectively limiting it to those residents wealthy enough to live there? That would be disgusting, right? You are doing just that. It isn't right. Karen From: Sent: To: Subject: -----0 rigi na I Message----- From: Cheri Bailiff Cheri Bailiff Thursday, August 27, 2020 5:18 PM CityCierk FW: Restricting parking on Crenshaw Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 1:27 PM To: 'Carrie Fernandez' <carrfer@cox.net>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Restricting parking on Crenshaw Thank you for the email. This will be included as late correspondence for the September 1, 2020 City Council meeting. -----Original Message----- From: Carrie Fernandez <carrfer@cox.net> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 1:16PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Restricting parking on Crenshaw Hello, We are residents of Island View and our entrance/exit is located on Crenshaw, south of Crest. There has been a steady increase in vehicle & foot traffic along Crenshaw. On the weekends, the car & pedestrian traffic is so severe that it is very difficult to get in and out of our neighborhood. This makes it dangerous for residents & visitors. Due to safety & traffic congestion, parking should be restricted along Crenshaw. Especially next to St. John Fisher Church because it is so narrow there. On busy visitor days, people are blocking the street trying to park & to get in and out of their cars. Visitor parking should not have a negative impact on our community. Parking should be available elsewhere & directed away from neighborhoods. A solution would be to offer parking within the Nature Preserve such as the open lot on PVD South (Gateway Park). Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Marc & Carrie Fernandez Sent from my iPad 1 s=. From: Sent: To: Subject: From: Cheri Bailiff Cheri Bailiff Thursday, August 27, 2020 5:17 PM CityCierk FW: Public Comment, City Council Meeting, Sept 1, Consent Item E Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 9:50AM To: 'BRIAN WHITIEN' <brianwhitten1965@msn.com> Subject: RE: Public Comment, City Council Meeting, Sept 1, Consent Item E Thank you for the email. This will be included as late correspondence for the September I , 2 020 City Council meeting. From: BRIAN WHITIEN <brianwhitten1965@msn.com > Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 9:48AM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov > Subject: Public Comment, City Council Meeting, Sept 1, Consent Item E Good Morning, I disagree with the City's plan to ban all parking on Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Road. I live nearby and have been visiting Del Cerro Park and the trails in the Preserve for more than 20 years. I'm fortunate enough to be able to walk to the Preserve. Yes, more and more people are visiting the Preserve. Good for them! It's open to the public and Crenshaw Blvd offers convenient parking that is NOT inside anybody's neighborhood . Let's remember that the Preserve was funding mostly by State funds and that the Preserve is there for ALL the public to enjoy, not just t hose of us fortunate to live nearby. Based upon my personal observations over the years, I believe the complaints of traffic/noise/trash are exaggerated. It seems to me that some local residents want to keep "outsiders" from visiting the Preserve via the Burma Road. This is selfish and wrong. There is no problem with people parking on Crenshaw south of Crest. The Road is wide enough to accommodate street parking. Pushing people to park farther away is just a way to inconvenience them in an effort to deter them from coming. The effort to get visitors to park at City Hall is also unreasonable and misguided. People don't want to walk on the trails around City Hall. They want to walk on the Burma Trail. They should be able to continue to park safely on Crenshaw Blvd. This is really just an effort driven by local residents to keep non -residents away . Sincerely, 1 E. Brian Whitten 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Origi na I Message----- Cheri Bailiff Thursday, August 27, 2020 5:17 PM CityCierk FW: Parking south of Crest From: Becky Martin <BeckyM@rpvca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 6:03 PM To: Marian Locascio <kSkkt@aol.com>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Parking south of Crest Thank you for the email. This will be included as late correspondence for the September 1, 2020 City Council meeting. -----Original Message----- From: Marian Locascio <kSkkt@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 1:25PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Parking south of Crest Regarding your request for comments on restricting parking South of Crest, I don't really have any comments. The cars parked there don't really bother me. What really does bother me is all the trash being left strewn around Del Cerro Park. I walk there a lot and despite the available trash cans, there are always bottles, cans and other trash all over. People are pigs. If Park users were respectful I would welcome them and their desire for outdoor activity. If we have littering laws they need to be displayed and enforced. Regards Marian Locascio RPV Sent from my iPad 1 t. From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Original Message----- Cheri Bailiff Thursday, August 27, 2020 5:16PM CityCierk FW: Regarding parking on Crenshaw From: Becky Martin <BeckyM@rpvca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 6:04 PM To: Kurt Schellenbach <disklxik_kurts@yahoo.com>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Regarding parking on Crenshaw Thank you for the email. This will be included as late correspondence for the September 1, 2020 City Council meeting. -----Original Message----- From: Kurt Schellenbach <disklxik_kurts@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 12:40 PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Regarding parking on Crenshaw South of Crest road ... I've suspected for a long time now that the city would consider restricting parking on Crenshaw to ebb the flow of hikers in the reserve areas. This is a lazy solution to the "NIMBY" mentality some residents might have towards the "undesirables" who hike in the reserve. If you decide to restrict parking, how about offering the non-resident hikers who often use and care for the reserves a non-resident parking permit they can register and pay for? The fees could help with the maintenance of the area. Who else can I bring this suggestion up to? Kurt Schellenbach 310-245-8280 Sent from my iPhone From: Cheri Bailiff Sent: To: Thursday, August 27, 2020 5:16PM CityCierk Subject: FW: parking near Del Cerro -----Original Message----- From: Becky Martin <BeckyM@rpvca.gov> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 7:22AM To: Donna Mclaughlin <ddmclaughlin@cox.net>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: parking near Del Cerro Thank you for the email. This will be included as late correspondence for the September 1, 2020 City Council meeting. -----Original Message----- From: Donna Mclaughlin <ddmclaughlin@cox.net> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 8:18 PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: parking near Del Cerro I am a frequent hiker at Del Cerro. I am a resident of RPV and have been hiking Portuguese Bend Preserve for over 20 years. I feel the residents of RPV should have at least some parking spaces put back on Crenshaw as they used to have with the black and white striped curbing. The other residents of RPV who have gone to the trouble of get parking permits have given up a lot to the Del Cerro area neighbors, especially the three homes on Park Place. We pay our city taxes also and have had our rights to park there taken away by a few families that live in that area. I agree that it is a huge problem at Del Cerro recently, but other residents who hike there often should not be punished because of the outside crowds coming to the trails. I would like to request that at least 20 spaces be painted on Crenshaw close to Del Cerro for residents with parking permits. Please consider taking in consideration the residents who have been hiking there for years and gone to to the trouble to get parking permits. The other real problem is people parking on Park Place without permits and taking up places that are designated for permits only. There is NO ENFORCEMENT there and the people know it and park there anyway. There needs to be monitoring and ticketing of the non-permitted vehicles parking there. This especially need to be done now since all the parking on Crenshaw south of Crest will be taken away. Thank you. Donna Mclaughlin 310/377-1620 RPV resident (Will also send this email to trails@rpvca.gov) 1 From: Cheri Bailiff Sent: To: Thursday, August 27, 2020 5:15 PM CityCierk Subject: FW: Restricted Parking From: Marcia Watanabe <marcialwatanabe@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 10:59 AM To: Becky Martin <Beck yM@rpvca .gov> Cc: PublicWorks <P ublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Restricted Parking Thank you for the information. On Wed , Aug 26, 2020 at 5:58PM Becky Martin <B eckyM @rpvca.gov> wrote : Thank you for your email, please click on the date below. This will be the link to the City Council Age nda Item from the August 18, 2020 . From: Marcia Watanabe <marcialwatanabe@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 5:19PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca .gov> Subject: Restricted Parking I am a resident of RPV and have a parking pass for Del Cerro Park. My question is , what is the plan for parking for those who don't have a parking pass. Are the city and it's nearby residents hopin g to restrict access to the hiking trails? Seems like that's something that's not being well thought out at this point. Restricting parking for 60 days doesn't seem reasonable. Please come up with a so lution that allows visitors to walk/explore/hike the trails. What is the plan? 1 Thank you, Marcia Watanabe 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Original Message----- Cheri Bailiff on behalf of Phone-PW-Main Friday, August 28, 2020 8:40 AM CityCierk FW: Parking at Del Cerro -Late Correspondence From: Laurie Smith <vnlsmith@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 8:36AM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Parking at Del Cerro Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, I am writing in response to the temporary parking prohibition near Del Cerro Park. As a 40-year resident of PVE and frequent user of the trails near Del Cerro Park, I am appalled to learn about the upcoming parking prohibition. The parking on Crenshaw, south of Crest Road, is currently the only non-permit parking available proximate to the park and trails. Rather than continuing to reduce access to public space, we should explore ways to INCREASE parking, such as replacing inefficient parallel parking with "head in" spots on the wide shoulder and adding spaces in the park by reducing some of the thirsty lawn area. Also, in my experience, the spaces reserved for residents in the park are majority unused on weekdays and not full even on busy weekends. It is our responsibility to allow access to the public space within our community and there is ample space for parking and shared use. When choosing to live in an area near public lands, some traffic and congestion are a given. Caveat Emptor. I live on PVDN so should I try to curb parking on "my" street because it's inconvenient for me at times? Particularly in these times, we should be looking for solutions that welcome rather than discourage visitors to our outdoor spaces. Sincerely, Laurie Smith 1 E· From: Cheri Bailiff Sent: To: Friday, August 28, 2020 7:41 AM CityCierk Subject: FW: Del Cerro access/parking -Late Correspondence From: Julie Winter <monkeyswag@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 9:10 PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Del Cerro access/parking As a 21-year resident ofPVE, and frequent user of the trails near Del Cerro Park, I am appalled to learn about the upcoming parking prohibition. The parking on Crenshaw, south of Crest Road, is currently the only non- permit parking available proximate to the park and trails. Rather than continuing to reduce access to public space, we should explore ways to INCREASE parking, such as replacing inefficient parallel parking with "head in" spots on the wide shoulder and adding spaces in the park by reducing some of the thirsty lawn area. Also, in my experience, the spaces reserved for "residents" in the park are unused on weekdays and not full even on busy weekends. I put "residents" in quotes, because as a resident of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, I logged many volunteer hours with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy in the enormous effort to purchase the land for the Portuguese Bend Preserve. Many residents ofthe hill, not just those who live in RPV, donated money, time, and expertise to create an "open space for all". In fact, that is very mission statement of the PVPLC. "For all". Not merely the residents who find themselves the beneficiary of a beautiful open space near their home, where, without all that effort, time, and money, would have endured the traffic and density of a large housing tract, planned where the preserve now exists. Eliminating access by eliminating parking is a slap in the face to those who are not RPV residents, yet without whom, there would be no preserve. When I attended a prior meeting on this issue, the ridiculous option of taking an Uber to the preserve was suggested. Taking a $20 R T Uber with a dog at the break of day for a weekly hike? And calling another Uber after my hike with a muddy dog? Really?? I have a framed award from the PVPLC for my "outstanding support". To think that after that support, I could not access this space because the neighbors lucky enough to live nearby, somehow believe that now they have ownership is outrageous. To quote the PVPLC website: "We came together to successfully resist the ever-increasing pressures to develop privately held open space in the Portuguese Bend for all to enjoy: ourselves, our children, and many generations to come." It does not say, "we came together to create an open space for the few neighbors who live adjacent to the preserve". It is our responsibility to allow access to the public space within our community and there is ample space for parking and shared use. Julie Winter 1 t. From: Cheri Bailiff Sent: To: Friday, August 28, 2020 7:40AM CityCierk Subject: FW: Del Cerro parking -Late Correspondence -----Origi na I Message----- From: gerard melling <gpmelling@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 8:26 PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Cc: Daniel Melling <dmelling@gmail.com> Subject: Del Cerro parking As a 20 year resident of RPV, frequent user of the trails near Del Cerro Park, and payer of a big property tax bill, with my friends, I am appalled to learn about the upcoming parking prohibition. The parking on Crenshaw, south of Crest Road, is currently the only non-permit parking available proximate to the park and trails. Rather than continuing to reduce access to public space, we should explore ways to INCREASE parking, such as replacing inefficient parallel parking with "head in" spots on the wide shoulder and adding spaces in the park by reducing some of the thirsty lawn area. Also, in my experience, the spaces reserved for residents in the park are majority unused on weekdays and not full even on busy weekends. It is our responsibility to allow access to the public space within our community and there is ample space for parking and shared use. When choosing to live in an area near public lands, some traffic and congestion must be expected. It's not a private fiefdom. Particularly in these times, we should be looking for solutions that welcome rather than discourage visitors to our outdoor spaces. Could we please have some action to redress this situation? Gerard Melling 26600 Menominee place Rpv Sent from my iPhone 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Cheri Bailiff on behalf of Phone-PW-Main Friday, August 28, 2020 12:13 PM CityCierk FW: Comments re proposal to prohibit Crenshaw parking south of Crest Rd. -Late Correspondence From: Anita & Bob Caplan <arcaplan2@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 11:50 AM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Comments re proposal to prohibit Crenshaw parking south of Crest Rd. Three comments: 1. During the time of the pandemic is not a good time to restrict access to the PVPLC. Walking in the conservancy is a safe outlet which can help alleviate depression and anxiety --and possibly suicide. 2. I am a 78-year-old resident of Redondo Beach and I walk in the Conservancy every week. I send yearly contributions to the PVPLC. If I cannot access the Conservancy, why should I support it? 3. The interests of a few neighbors pale in comparison to the educational, health, psychological, and environmental benefits of welcoming diverse visitors to the Conservancy. This is not a good time to restrict access. Thank you for your consideration. Anita Harrison Caplan Redondo Beach 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Cheri Bailiff Friday, August 28, 2020 1 :44 PM CityCierk FW: Parking on Crenshaw south of Crest (Del Cerro Park and Reserve area) -Late Correspondence From: Terry Scott <jtscottl@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 1:40PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Parking on Crenshaw south of Crest (Del Cerro Park and Reserve area) Public Input for the 9/1/2020 RPV City Council Meeting: Hi-My name is Terry Scott. My husband Jim and I have been hiking every week (usually on Tuesday mornings) for the last 5 years in the Portuguese Bend Reserve. I would urge the Council to NOT formalize the motion to temporarily prohibit parking on Crenshaw south of Crest Road. These are public lands and they should be easily accessible to the public. I personally have not seen problems related to traffic, especially during the weekdays. (I can't speak to the weekends, because I do not hike there then.) It may be that there are more people coming to enjoy the Reserve due to COVID restrictions which have shut down many other outlets (gyms, playgrounds, etc.), but this is an unusual year and being out in nature is one of the few safe things that people can do during this pandemic. And, if there are improvements that need to be made to the parking situation (I'm still not convinced that there is a real problem), why is it necessary to do a 60 day prohibition now in the main area where hikers park? How does having this temporary prohibition help you solve the problem long term? It appears to those of us who come from out ofthe area that the City Council is just trying to assuage a small vocal group of RPV residents who don't like the extra people coming into their neighborhood. I live at the beach and hear the same on Next Door from some of my neighbors too. But, these are public spaces; just because we are fortunate enough to live right next door to them does not mean that we are somehow entitled to keep other members of the public out. If the Council feels it is important to keep people from parking on Crenshaw, why not work on coming up with an alternate accessible place for hikers to park FIRST, and then tell people, {/You can park here, and now that this new parking area is available to you, we are going to prohibit parking on Crenshaw south of Crest." To formalize this motion now (with no adequate alternative available), is just going to have the effect of keeping the public out of these public lands. Thank you, Terry Scott Jtscottl@verizon.net Cell: 310-612-9684 Home: 310-318-0066 2026 Ardmore Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 USA (. From: Sent: To: Subject: Cheri Bailiff on behalf of Phone-PW-Main Friday, August 28, 2020 2:47 PM CityCierk FW: Public Access to Del Cerro park and trails-Late Correspondence From: Leslie Gold <lesliesgold@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 2:45 PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Public Access to Del Cerro park and trails Hello, As a 20+ year resident of RPV, I am writing to express my concern about the proposal to further limit parking on Crenshaw Boulevard near Del Cerro Park. It will achieve the opposite of what is presumably desired (less traffic, fewer people standing around). Furthermore, it would be unfair to the public. Limiting parking to one side already created more traffic in the area because people now have to drive slowly up and down Crenshaw looking for one of the few if any available spaces. If we remove parking on both sides ofthe street, people will drive to the end of Crenshaw, drop offpassengers, make aU-turn, and then drive back down past Crest Road to find parking. Eliminating parking on Crenshaw will INCREASE traffic, especially at the end of the road. Furthermore, it will INCREASE crowd sizes, as it will lead to more people congregating at Del Cerro as they wait for the driver of the vehicle they arrived in to find parking. If people were able to easily find parking and then begin their hike, because there are spaces on both sides of Crenshaw Boulevard, we would have LESS TRAFFIC and LESS CONGESTION. Additionally, we as a city need to do what's right. The Del Cerro trails are public spaces. It is not a private park. Furthermore, that land was purchased with money from donors who reside both in RPV and beyond. They didn't give for the sole benefit ofRPV residents with permits. We do NOT have the right to restrict public access to a public park. We should be a community that welcomes all who come to enjoy the beauty of our city. Restricting access is ethically wrong. It is morally wrong. Let's be good citizens, while reducing traffic and minimizing the group gatherings. We can best do this by ADDING parking spaces, not taking them away. Thank you for your consideration. Leslie Gold E. From: Sent: To: Subject: Cheri Bailiff Friday, August 28, 2020 3:26 PM CityCierk FW: Parking on Crenshaw elimination-Late Correspondence From: Rick Bragg <rbragglS@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 3:23PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Parking on Crenshaw elimination Dear Ladies, Gentlemen and undecided, Today I noticed the sign announcing a closure of all parking on the approach to Del Cerro Park. I called the posted number and was told that it would be temporary for 60 days while the city council discussed better long term parking solutions. Please excuse me for introducing common sense and logic here but this makes no sense on any level! We can't park in the neighborhood due to posted signs even though the folks living here have wide and nearly empty streets. Ok, same everywhere in wealthy neighborhoods. Del Cerro Park has been nearly empty every single day I've come here to hike, reserved for permits only. Who gets a permit, someone who lives in the neighborhood and could walk? I don't know and don't care, just wondering. So, the last half mile of Crenshaw seems to work well. The street is wide, cars move slowly, there's minimal traffic-it's safe and easy. A temporary closure while discussing and planning? Give me one reason you'd need to close the parking, outside of a big construction project. Surveys can be done w/o closing it. I figure one or more field trips for y'all to walk around and point and scribble but you can park your bus or cars in the DC parking lot. Parking will now begin about 1/2 mile further back where Crenshaw is narrower and where the downhill traffic moves at a much greater speed and where it's much more heavily trafficked. I'm a 69 year old resident of Gardena. Covid wiped out my previous career so instead of being retired, I finally re-entered the work force one month ago and am starting over. From early Feb til early July I took up hiking, mostly here, as my new sport & recreation. I visited the Portuguese Bend area 3-5 times a week but now I can only do it once a week. 50 plus enjoyable but brutal hill hkes. I implore you to use logic and common sense. There is no better parking solution unless we're allowed to use the neighborhoods and park. Using that logic again, I figure that one or more prominent members of the city council live in the neighborhood and think the rifraf should not be allowed to park and pollute near you. Problem is, we'll still all drive up to the dead end and turn around but a lot more people will decide to find another area to congest, and all of us will be frustrated and angry. By coincidence, I encountered 2 different PVPLC employees doing their jobs on the trails today and both were as baffled as I was about the closure. Thanks much; please consider my words seriously! From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Wednesday, August 26 , 2020 1:31 PM CityCierk Subject: Atta chments: FW : Late Correspondence for ADU item 8-26 -20 Gelfand email.pdf Late carr From: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca .gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 11:37 AM To: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca .gov> Cc: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca .gov> Subject: Late Correspondence for ADU item Hello- Please see the attached , thank you. Amy Seeraty Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd . Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275 www .rpvca.gov amys@rpvca.gov -(310) 544 -5231 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 . 1 \. Amy Seeraty From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Folks, Matthew Gelfand <admin@caforhomes.org> on behalf of matt@caforhomes.org Wednesday, August 26, 2020 10:20 AM Ken Rukavina; Amy Seeraty; wwynder@awattorneys.com; egerli@awattorneys.com 'Nickless, Greg@HCD' RE: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership We have given the City countless opportunities to explain how enclosed parking improves fire safety. Time and time again, you have been unable to do so. The Planning Commission recognized the lack of justification and recommended removing the enclosed parking requirement. Remarkably, staff are now seeking to override that recommendation. But for the fourth staff report in a row, there isn't even the faintest effort to provide a fire or life safety justification for the requirement, beyond a vague reference to prohibiting tandem parking, which is a completely different issue. The enclosed parking requirement is a red line for us. It is an aesthetic requirement with no safety justification. It directly contravenes state law, and it will significantly impact both ADU production numbers and the cost of building ADUs in the City. If the City moves forward with this ordinance with an enclosed parking requirement, we will almost certainly be forced to sue the City. When we do so, we will highlight the fact that even the Planning Commission could not identify a valid justification for this provision. You may want to address that with the City Council in closed session. All the best, Matt Gelfand From: Matthew Gelfand <admin@caforhomes.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 11:34 AM To: pc@rpvca.gov; planning@rpvca.gov Cc: 'Ken Rukavina' <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; 'Amy Seeraty' <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; wwynder@awattorneys.com; egerli@awattorneys.com; 'Nickless, Greg@HCD' <Greg.Nickless@hcd.ca.gov> Subject: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership To the Planning Commission: Please see the attached correspondence regarding Agenda Item 4 being considered at your upcoming meeting. TO STAFF: In light of the length of the letter, we are not asking that the letter be read into the record. Instead, we ask that you read this abridged version: "Californians for Homeownership is a 501{c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to using legal tools to address California's housing crisis. You have been provided with a letter we submitted as part of our work monitoring local compliance with California's laws regarding accessory dwelling units. Our letter follows up on our recent correspondence regarding the City's policies on ADUs. Our detailed concerns about the City's draft ordinance are explained in our prior letters. Those concerns persist. But today, we wish instead to highlight the City's continuing refusal to answer one simple question about its draft ordinance: How does requiring enclosed parking rather than unenclosed parking reduce fire risk? There is no legitimate explanation for this policy, which reflects the City's aesthetic preferences, not concerns about fire safety. Enclosed parking is, if anything, more dangerous, because it can impede evacuation during a power fai l ure as compared with unenclosed parking. Once again, we implore the City to consult with the state Department of Housing and Community Deve lopment as it develops its ADU ordinance." Sincere ly, Matthew Ge lfand Matthew Gelfand Counsel , Californians for Homeownership 525 S . Virgil Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90020 matt@ caforhomes.org Tel : (213) 739-8206 Californians for Homeownership is a 50 I (c)(3) non-profit organization that works to address California 's housing crisis through impact litigation and other legal tools. 2 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 9:28AM CityCierk To: Subject: Fw: City Council Meeting -9/1/20; Item# 2 -Clean Power Alliance Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Completed From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 5:34:54 PM To:CC Subject: City Council Meeting-9/1/20; Item# 2-Clean Power Alliance Tonight you will be once again reviewing if our City should partner with CPA to deliver green electric power to RPV. Staff was asked to provide a feasibility study, independent of that from CPA. There is a City Council approved budget for $15,000 to obtain this independent study. I feel that this money is a wasteful expenditure that our residents should not have to pay. There are already so many negative aspects of the CPA program. I urge the City Council to vote NO on CPA and recommend the SCE program, which does not obligate RPV to any potential financial burden. This allows those residents who wish to pay more for their green power through SCE to do so, while not automatically enrolling every resident into the CPA program. I Some of the issues are: 1. The CPA program adds another layer of bureaucracy to our power distribution system along with potential financial issues and costs. 2. RPV has nothing to gain and a lot to lose if it joins this program. During the last meeting CPA did not disclose the liabilities that RPV would incur. Once RPV joins, estimates to leave the program are around $12,500,000 based on current figures and of course CPA will not release any information from other cities contracts due to privacy issues. 3. CPA can increase our electrical costs and charge whatever they want at any time without any approval from the PUC. SCE, on the other hand, is legally required to sell energy at cost and get approvals from the PUC before they can impose a rate increase. 4. The SCE program is "Energy Certified" by the PUC, which only allows certain qualified and approved forms of green energy while CPA does not. 5. The contract with CPA includes an "Eminent Domain" agreement which gives CPA control of all of our residential property in RPV to CPA. 6. The contract also has a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that RPV must sign. I believe our City Attorney is reviewing the NDA that SCE requires RPV to sign to release personal information on all residents to CPA. This is unnecessary since SCE provides energy reports already. However, RPV should not release any personal data to CPA without resident approval. 7. Once RPV joins the CPA, every user in RPV is automatically enrolled in CPA. They can opt out, but many RPV senior residents won't even be aware of these changes, because SCE will still provide the monthly bill. I urge the City Council to vote NO on CPA and recommend the SCE program, which does not obligate RPV to any potential financial burden. This allows those residents who wish to pay more for their green power through SCE to do so, while not automatically enrolling every resident into the CPA program. From: Sent: To: Subject: Late carr item 4 Teresa Takaok a Monday, August 31, 2020 2:19PM CityCierk FW : Continuation of FLOCK Camera Program From: Craig Whited <craigwhited@cox.net> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 1:48PM To: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca .go v>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.brad ley@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken .Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca .gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .go v >; CC <CC@rp vca .go v > Subject: Continuation of FLOCK Camera Program Members of the RPV City Council, On behalf of the Mediterrania HOA, I am reaching out to you to authorize the extension of the City's matching funds program for the rental and/ or purchase of security cameras like the FLOCK Sparrow. Our HOA is considering two cameras to provide better safety and security for our neighborhood. We recently received detailed information from Ara Mihranian at a CHOA meeting regarding the mechanics of how such a camera system would work. As we have only two entry/ exit points, serving as many as 400 homes, we can cover our neighborhood with only two cameras and would welcome the City's matching funds to assist us. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Yours very truly, Craig Whited President -MHOA ~·