20201104 Late Correspondence1
From:Wesley Luk <wesman888@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 4, 2020 10:33 PM
To:CityClerk
Subject:Pages...
Attachments:4.jpg; 3.jpg; 1.jpg; 2.jpg
Here is the picture
1
1
From:Karina Banales
Sent:Wednesday, November 4, 2020 6:25 PM
To:CityClerk
Subject:FW: Consideration and possible action to receive a status report on relocating certain
utility poles at 3867 Crest Road.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Robert Gagliano <rjgagliano@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 6:23 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Consideration and possible action to receive a status report on relocating certain utility poles at 3867 Crest
Road.
Honorable Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council:
I am writing to you in connection with the subject relocation of utility poles at 3867 Crest Road.
I am a resident of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and live in the gated development of Rancho Palos Verdes Estates,
which is comprised of 76 single family homes across the street from the 3867 Crest Road. Our Home Owner’s
Association has been active and opposed to the idea of moving these poles to our side of Crest Road for many reasons
that make sense for our community the City and each of you. The whim of one resident who doesn’t even reside in our
gated development should not take precedence over our Home Owners Association (HOA). Mr Funiciello is essentially
moving his perceived problem to our community, this is wrong no matter how you look at it.
This whole exercise is solely to accommodate one single family resident who resides outside our gated community. I find
it amazing that the City has allowed the whim of one homeowner to carry this absurd proposal to where it is today.
What we are dealing with here is a simple case of buyers remorse. Mr. Funiciello purchased his home with the utility
poles and supports sitting right adjacent to his home, the placement, etc. has previously been approved by the City and
at least 2 prior owners of his home have never had an issue with the present utility pole setup. His arguments are
synonymous to someone buying a home on a golf course and complaining about golfers noise and golf balls being hit
into his property and then demands the golf course be moved. The City in even entertaining this one sided request
ignores the HOA’s property rights, it’s just flat wrong!
Relocating the utility poles to our side of the street endangers our 76 homes and would be near a group of trees that
provide plenty of fuel in the case of a wildfire caused by power sparks. This proposed project is unsafe and endangers
many more structures than if the utility poles are left right where they are. I have read that it is well known that
covered conductors do not eliminate wildfire risks so why would the City allow this greater risk to occur for the sake of
one individual? Think of the potential liability you would be assuming. Think of the massive wildfires we have
experienced in California this year that have been started by power lines and ancillary equipment.
In the interest of mitigating fire danger to 76 homes vs one, future potential liability to the City and each of you, the
proposed relocation should be voted down and soon. I think the City Council has better things to do than play advocate
to a disgruntled homeowner who is suffering from a large dose of buyers remorse.
Robert J Gagliano
4
1
From:Charles Eder
Sent:Wednesday, November 4, 2020 5:01 PM
To:CityClerk
Cc:Ron Dragoo; Ramzi Awwad
Subject:Late Correspondence: Harris Agreement - RPV Altamira Cyn Drainage Study
Attachments:RPV - Harris and Assoc. - Altamira Canyon.DOCX
As directed,
Attached is Late Correspondence for Item D.
The attached contract was just approved by the City Attorney’s Office and agreed to by Harris and Associates for
signatures. To be signed soon after.
Charles Eder, PE
Senior Engineer
Department of Public Works
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: William Ash <wash@awattorneys.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 4:02 PM
To: Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Harris Agreement ‐ RPV Altamira Cyn Drainage Study
Here is the contract Charles
William Ash | Associate
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP | 18881 Von Karman Ave., Suite 1700, Irvine, CA 92612
Tel: (949) 223‐1170 | Dir: (949) 250‐5439 | Fax: (949) 223‐1180 | wash@awattorneys.com | awattorneys.com
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you
may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via email and delete the email you received.
D
01203.0006/669599.3
CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
By and Between
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
and
HARRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC
01203.0006/669599.3 1
AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND
HARRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (herein “Agreement”) is made and
entered into on October 6, 2020, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
California municipal corporation (“City”) and HARRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC., a California
corporation (“Consultant”). City and Consultant may be referred to, individually or collectively,
as “Party” or “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. City has sought, by issuance of a Request for Proposals or Invitation for Bids, the
performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement.
B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal or bid for the performance of the
services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement, was selected by the City
to perform those services.
C. Pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, City has authority to
enter into and execute this Agreement.
D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of those
services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that the terms
of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.
OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by the
Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT
1.1 Scope of Services.
In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide
those services specified in the “Scope of Services” attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated
herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the “services” or “work” hereunder.
As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement, Consultant represents and
warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to properly perform the
services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and professional manner, and is
experienced in performing the work and services contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times
faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all services
described herein. Consultant covenants that it shall follow the highest professional standards in
performing the work and services required hereunder and that all materials will be both of good
quality as well as fit for the purpose intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “highest
01203.0006/669599.3 2
professional standards” shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one or more first-
class firms performing similar work under similar circumstances.
1.2 Consultant’s Proposal.
The Scope of Service shall include the Consultant’s scope of work or bid which shall be
incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any
inconsistency between the terms of such proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement
shall govern.
1.3 Compliance with Law.
Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder in
accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and any
Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is
rendered.
1.4 California Labor Law.
If the Scope of Services includes any “public work” or “maintenance work,” as those terms
are defined in California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. and California Code of Regulations,
Title 8, Section 16000 et seq., and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant shall
pay prevailing wages for such work and comply with the requirements in California Labor Code
section 1770 et seq. and 1810 et seq., and all other applicable laws, including the following
requirements:
(a) Public Work. The Parties acknowledge that some or all of the work to be
performed under this Agreement is a “public work” as defined in Labor Code Section 1720 and
that this Agreement is therefore subject to the requirements of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1
(commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code relating to public works contracts
and the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”)
implementing such statutes. The work performed under this Agreement is subject to compliance
monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Consultant shall post job site notices, as prescribed by
regulation.
(b) Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall pay prevailing wages to the extent
required by Labor Code Section 1771. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the
prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any
interested party on request. By initiating any work under this Agreement, Consultant
acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) determination of
the prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Consultant shall post a copy of the same at each job site
where work is performed under this Agreement.
(c) Penalty for Failure to Pay Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall comply with
and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment
of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The
Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar day,
or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the DIR for
01203.0006/669599.3 3
the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to this
Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor.
(d) Payroll Records. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the
provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Consultant and each subconsultant to: keep
accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as specified
in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as provided by
Section 1776; and inform the City of the location of the records.
(e) Apprentices. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions
of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations Title 8,
Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects. Consultant
shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all apprenticeable
occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Consultant shall provide City with
a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within sixty (60)
days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant and each of its subconsultants
shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed
under this Agreement.
(f) Eight-Hour Work Day. Consultant acknowledges that eight (8) hours labor
constitutes a legal day's work. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section
1810.
(g) Penalties for Excess Hours. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by
the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess
hours. The Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit twenty -five dollars ($25) for each
worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Consultant or by any subcontractor
for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight
(8) hours in any one calendar day and forty (40) hours in any one calendar week in violation of the
provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code
section 1815, work performed by employees of Consultant in excess of eight (8) hours per day,
and forty (40) hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation
for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than one and one-half (1½) times the
basic rate of pay.
(h) Workers’ Compensation. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700
provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its
employees if it has employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section
1861, Consultant certifies as follows:
“I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require
every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of
this contract.”
Consultant’s Authorized Initials ________
01203.0006/669599.3 4
(i) Consultant’s Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor
who will perform work under this Agreement, Consultant shall be responsible for such
subcontractor's compliance with Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of
the California Labor Code, and shall make such compliance a requirement in any contract with
any subcontractor for work under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to take all actions
necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor's compliance, including
without limitation, conducting a review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor on a
periodic basis or upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay his or her workers
the specified prevailing rate of wages. Consultant shall diligently take corrective action to halt or
rectify any such failure by any subcontractor.
1.5 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments.
Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as
may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Consultant
shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties
and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the Consultant’s
performance of the services required by this Agreement, and shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any such fees, assessments, taxes,
penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City hereunder.
1.6 Familiarity with Work.
By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly
investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered
how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and
restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve
work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or
will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services
hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially
affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform the City of
such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant’s risk until written instructions are received
from the Contract Officer.
1.7 Care of Work.
The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish
continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents, plans, studies
and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such
damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or
damages as may be caused by City’s own negligence.
1.8 Further Responsibilities of Parties.
Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective
obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all instruments,
prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes
01203.0006/669599.3 5
of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible for the service of
the other.
1.9 Additional Services.
City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without
invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services or
make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be
undertaken unless a written order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant,
incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the extra work,
and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the written
approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to ten percent (10%) of the
Contract Sum or $25,000, whichever is less; or, in the time to perform of up to one hundred eighty
(180) days, may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increases, taken either separately
or cumulatively, must be approved by the City Council. It is expressly understood by Consultant
that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to services specifically set forth in the Scope of
Services. Consultant hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to be provided
pursuant to the Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than Consultant
anticipates and that Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor. City may
in its sole and absolute discretion have similar work done by other Consultants. No claims for an
increase in the Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the procedures
established in this Section are followed.
1.10 Special Requirements.
Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof
are set forth in the “Special Requirements” attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein
by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit “B” and any other
provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit “B” shall govern.
ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT
2.1 Contract Sum.
Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the
amounts specified in the “Schedule of Compensation” attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and
incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for actual
expenses, shall not exceed $254,967 (Two Hundred Fifty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-
Seven Dollars) (the “Contract Sum”), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to
Section 1.9.
2.2 Method of Compensation.
The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon completion; (ii)
payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of the services, less
contract retention; (iii) payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant’s rates as
specified in the Schedule of Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the
01203.0006/669599.3 6
performance of sub tasks, (b) contract retention is maintained, and (c) the Contract Sum is not
exceeded; or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation.
2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.
Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for
reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in
advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.4,
and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the
attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City.
Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If
Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant
shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings.
2.4 Invoices.
Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice for all work performed and
expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by City’s Director of Finance.
By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying compliance
with all provisions of the Agreement. The invoice shall contain all information specified in Exhibit
“C”, and shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the following categories:
labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and sub-contractor contracts. Sub-
contractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant shall not invoice City for
any duplicate services performed by more than one person.
City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine
whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this
Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant
which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will use its best efforts to cause
Consultant to be paid within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Consultant’s correct and undisputed
invoice; however, Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run procedures,
the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the event any charges
or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City to Consultant for
correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice provided by the
Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided herein or any applicable
law.
2.5 Waiver.
Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed
to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.
ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
3.1 Time of Essence.
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
01203.0006/669599.3 7
3.2 Schedule of Performance.
Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a
written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in the
“Schedule of Performance” attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by this
reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time period(s) specified in the
Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer but not exceeding
one hundred eighty (180) days cumulatively.
3.3 Force Majeure.
The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the
services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to
unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant,
including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather, fires,
earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, wars,
litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant shall
within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of
the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and
extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when and if in the
judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer’s determination shall
be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant be entitled
to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of this Agreement, however
caused, Consultant’s sole remedy being extension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section.
3.4 Term.
Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement
shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding one (1)
year from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit
“D”). The City may, in its discretion, extend the Term by one additional one-year term.
ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK
4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant.
The following principals of Consultant (“Principals”) are hereby designated as being the
principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work
specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:
Ehab S. Gerges, PE Senior Vice President
Name Title
Randall G. Berry, PE Director, Engineering Services
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.
01203.0006/669599.3 8
Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for
directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the
services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be
under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the
foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced
by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize
only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall make
every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant’s staff and
subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement. Consultant
shall notify City of any changes in Consultant’s staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to
perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any such performance.
4.2 Status of Consultant.
Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation,
debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless
such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in
writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any
of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers, empl oyees or
agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant’s officers, employees or agents, shall
obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may otherwise accrue to
City’s employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may have to any such rights.
4.3 Contract Officer.
The Contract Officer shall be Ron Dragoo, City Engineer, or such person as may be
designated by the City Manager. It shall be the Consultant’s responsibility to assure that the
Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the
Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless
otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the
Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in writing by the City
Manager, to sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of
this Agreement.
4.4 Independent Consultant.
Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or
means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except
as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or
control of Consultant’s employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing their number,
compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an
independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent
contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any
time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees
of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of
Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any joint enterprise with
Consultant.
01203.0006/669599.3 9
4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.
The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and
employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore,
Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services
required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. In addition, neither this
Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or
encumbered voluntarily or by operation of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise,
without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer
to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty five percent (25%) of the
present ownership and/or control of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative
basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy proceeding, this
Agreement shall be void. No approved transfer shall release the Consultant or any surety of
Consultant of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City.
ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
5.1 Insurance Coverages.
Without limiting Consultant’s indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of any
services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense
during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below
and in a form satisfactory to City.
(a) General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in
an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily
injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has
not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not
be accepted.
(b) Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile
insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and
property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Services
to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned or
rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident.
(c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall
maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection
with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any
policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this
Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than
three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement.
(d) Workers’ compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers’
Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at
least $1,000,000).
01203.0006/669599.3 10
(e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds
under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated herein.
(f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required
in the Special Requirements in Exhibit “B”.
5.2 General Insurance Requirements.
(a) Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to City
as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation
endorsement for workers’ compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be
approved by City’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification
of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any
time.
(b) Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the
duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property,
which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services hereunder by
Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants.
(c) Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be
primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required
to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of
primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be
endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-
contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self -insurance shall
be called upon to protect it as a named insured.
(d) City’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required
under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced,
City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium
paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient
to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(e) Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance
company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or
that is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned
policyholders’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger) in
accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the
City’s Risk Manager.
(f) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured
pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or
appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow
Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to
waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery
01203.0006/669599.3 11
against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of
its subconsultants.
(g) Enforcement of contract provisions (non-estoppel). Consultant
acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform
Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City
nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
(h) Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or
limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other
requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference
to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and
is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or
a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above,
the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the
Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of
insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
(i) Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or
broker and insurers to provide to City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for
nonpayment for which a ten (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
be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any excess/umbrella
liability policies.
(k) Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages
required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting
endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
(l) Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for
all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of
liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.
(m) Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants,
subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in
the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements
required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes
all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements
of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants,
subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
(n) Agency’s right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any
time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by
giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change
01203.0006/669599.3 12
results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate
Consultant’s compensation.
(o) Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated,
lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these
specifications unless approved by City.
(p) Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant’s performance
under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability
policies.
(q) Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own
cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary
for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.
5.3 Indemnification.
To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) against, and will hold
and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial, administrative,
arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties,
obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened (herein “claims or
liabilities”) that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in
connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein of
Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or entity
for which Consultant is legally liable (“indemnitors”), or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’
reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’ negligent performance
of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement, and in
connection therewith:
Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims or
liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in
connection therewith;
Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its officers, agents
or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection with the negligent
performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of Consultant hereunder;
and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless
therefrom;
In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to any action or
proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims arising out of
or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform the work, operation or
activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers, agents or
employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or employees
in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys’ fees.
01203.0006/669599.3 13
Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if it
fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and
failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall not be a waiver hereof. This
indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or
omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional
services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring as
a result of City’s sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent permitted
by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City’s negligence, except that
design professionals’ indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities arising out of
the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The indemnity
obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive termination
of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION
6.1 Records.
Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of accounts,
invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the
disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the “books and records”), as
shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract
Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete and
detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all times
during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make records
and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years
following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such records in
the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant’s business, custody of the
books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by Consultant’s successor
in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall fully cooperate with the City in
providing access to the books and records if a public records request is made and disclosure is
required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records Act.
6.2 Reports.
Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports
concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer
shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost of
work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant agrees
that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or
will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein or, if
Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant shall
promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the
estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design
services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed.
01203.0006/669599.3 14
6.3 Ownership of Documents.
All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes,
computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the “documents and materials”)
prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this
Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the Contract
Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim for further
employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of
ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use, reuse or
assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted documents
without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the City’s sole risk and without
liability to Consultant, and Consultant’s guarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use,
reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant
shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein. All subcontractors shall provide for
assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant
fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages resulting
therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents and materials that may qualify as
“works made for hire” as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such documents and materials are hereby
deemed “works made for hire” for the City.
6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information.
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in
performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the
public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such
information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written
authorization from the Contract Officer.
(b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not,
without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City
Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions,
response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this
Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided
Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
(c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of
Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City
shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and
fees, including attorney’s fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant’s conduct.
(d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of
deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed
there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at
any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and
to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by
01203.0006/669599.3 15
Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by
City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION
7.1 California Law.
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to
performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions
concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be
instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or any other
appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal
jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District
Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California.
7.2 Disputes; Default.
In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall
not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after
the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the reasons
for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the default.
This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if
circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold
all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the
alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices
during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take necessary
steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part of the City to give
notice of the Consultant’s default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City’s legal rights
or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.
7.3 Retention of Funds.
Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant
(whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in
dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or
damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by
reason of Consultant’s acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant’s
obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount
or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear
to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for
interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of City
to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligation s of the
Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.
01203.0006/669599.3 16
7.4 Waiver.
Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this
Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any
party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other
provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement.
Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of
the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by
a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver.
Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other
default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.
Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this
Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party
of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or
different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the
other party.
7.6 Legal Action.
In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in
equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel
specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any
other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary
provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections
905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.
7.7 Liquidated Damages.
Since the determination of actual damages for any delay in performance of this Agreement
would be extremely difficult or impractical to determine in the event of a breach of this Agreement,
the Consultant and its sureties shall be liable for and shall pay to the City the sum of $0.00 (No
Dollars) as liquidated damages for each working day of delay in the performance of any service
required hereunder. The City may withhold from any monies payable on account of services
performed by the Contractor any accrued liquidated damages.
7.8 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term.
This Section shall govern any termination of this Contract except as specifically provided
in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this
Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to C onsultant,
except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be
such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. In addition, the Consultant
reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon sixty (60)
days’ written notice to City, except that where termination is due to the fault of the City, the period
of notice may be such shorter time as the Consultant may determine. Upon receipt of any notice
01203.0006/669599.3 17
of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be
specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Except where the Consultant has initiated
termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to the
effective date of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer
thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the
Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the event the Consultant has initiated
termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the
work product actually produced hereunder. In the event of termination without cause pursuant to
this Section, the terminating party need not provide the non-terminating party with the opportunity
to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.
7.9 Termination for Default of Consultant.
If termination is due to the failure of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this
Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work and
prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable to
the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the
compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such
damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off or
partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.
7.10 Attorneys’ Fees.
If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any
action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action
or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable,
shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees shall include attorney’s fees on any
appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney’s fees shall be entitl ed to all other reasonable
costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs
the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be deemed to have accrued
on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or not such action is prosecuted
to judgment.
ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION
8.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees.
No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any
successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which
may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms
of this Agreement.
8.2 Conflict of Interest.
Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall
acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests
of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant’s performance of services under this
Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person
01203.0006/669599.3 18
having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor
without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid
conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City in the
performance of this Agreement.
No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in
this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the
Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation,
partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any
State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay
or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.
8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination.
Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons
claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of,
any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual
orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class in the performance of
this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and
that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion,
sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class.
8.4 Unauthorized Aliens.
Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., as amended, and in connection
therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ
such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this Agreement,
and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized aliens,
Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or sanctions
imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by City.
ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
9.1 Notices.
Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either party
desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either
served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager
and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 and in the case of the
Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of this Agreement.
Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing.
Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in seventy -two (72)
hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.
01203.0006/669599.3 19
9.2 Interpretation.
The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the
language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of
this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.
9.3 Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.
9.4 Integration; Amendment.
This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive
expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements
between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels
any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between
the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification
of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by
the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be
waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.
9.5 Severability.
In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections
contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or
decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any
of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are
hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder
unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit
of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.
9.6 Warranty & Representation of Non-Collusion.
No official, officer, or employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this
Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision relating
to this Agreement which may affect his/her financial interest or the financial interest of any
corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in
violation of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly
interested, or in violation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of
“financial interest” shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be
“remote” or “noninterests” pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant
warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party
including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration, or
other thing of value as a result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement.
Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s), omission(s),
or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money, consideration, or
other thing of value to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or
01203.0006/669599.3 20
employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. Consultant is
aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other conduct resulting in such
payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render this Agreement void and of
no force or effect.
Consultant’s Authorized Initials _______
9.7 Corporate Authority.
The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such
party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this
Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally
bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not
violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall
be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
01203.0006/669599.3 21
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date
and year first-above written.
CITY:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
municipal corporation
John Cruikshank, Mayor
ATTEST:
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
William W. Wynder, City Attorney
CONSULTANT:
HARRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
By: ________________________________
Gary H. Yagade, PE
Vice President
By:_________________________________
Randall G. Berry, PE
Director, Engineering Services
Address: 22 Executive Park, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92314
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one
signature required from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President
or any Vice President; and 2) Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or
any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT’S SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY
NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY
BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER
RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S BUSINESS ENTITY.
01203.0006/669599.3 22
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
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 d ocument and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
___________________________________
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________
DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
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, accurac y or validity of that document.
01203.0006/669599.3 23
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
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 DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
___________________________________
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________
DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
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.
01203.0006/669599.3 A-1
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. Consultant will perform the following work to revisit and extend the Altamira
Canyon Drainage Study (“Services”):
A. Orientation/Data Collection/Base Sheets
1. Data Collection and Review
(a) Hold a teleconference meet with City staff and hold “kickoff”
meeting. The Altamira Canyon Drainage Study (“Project”)
approach and site access protocol will be confirmed. Direction from
the City staff will be obtained and any new development information
from City records pertaining to the Project will be collected. The
original Altamira Canyon Drainage and Erosion Control Study
was 90% complete in December 2016. Consultant will partially
revisit the original study, provide updates to the topographic
survey and provide similar services included in the original
study scope for the expanded study limits upstream. Utility
information collected previously will be relied upon until the point
in the PS&E preparation phase when the design plans are far enough
along to share with the owners to coordinate future action on impacts
based on a proposed construction schedule. Due to COVID-19, it is
assumed that the kick-off meeting will likely be a teleconference call
with file sharing capabilities on computer screens.
(b) Prepare a Project schedule and meeting minutes for the kick -off
meeting/call.
2. Topographic Aerial Survey
(a) The same level of information obtained from the City for right-of-
way (R/W) and property lines will be sufficient for the Project study
level of effort. The new topographic survey will be tied to the
previously collected R/W line work. In addition to previous study
parcel/property lines, boundary lines, street center line, and right-of-
way (R/W) are not included, with the exception of these same lines
as depicted within the City GIS base data. Thus, the City’s GIS will
be the source of all property lines and roadway R/W.
(b) Aerial mapping at a 1-inch to 40-foot scale with 1-foot interval
contours will be compiled together with a color ortho-corrected
image file that is geo-referenced. Field survey will be performed to
set aerial targets, collect quality control points, and to set various
control points needed for the augmentation surveys.
01203.0006/669599.3 A-2
(c) Five days of topographic augmentation field surveys will be
provided based on Consultant’s requests for information. They will
be completed and invoiced in daily increments, to include the time
necessary to generate the point file and noted deliverables. Sketches
and photos prepared as part of the topographic augmentation will be
digitized and provided as well as ASCII point files of collected
points.
(i) Parcel and Right-of-Way Information
(A) Coordinate GIS information retrieval from the City.
(B) Control Datum
1) Horizontal: CCS83, Zone V (NA2011
2011.00) [To be confirmed]
2) Vertical: Los Angeles County benchmark
(NAVD88, 2005 Adj.)
(C) Control Survey
1) Set aerial targets (15)
2) Collect QA/QC points
3) Set control points for topographic
augmentation
(D) Field Topographic Survey
1) Collect topographic detail (e.g. sections,
structure detail, dips) as requested by
Consultant
3. Topographic Base Sheets for Conceptual Plans
(a) Utilizing the previously discussed aerial and supplemental ground
surveys, updated construction plan, and profile base sheets will be
prepared in AutoCAD for each of the mainline creek alternative
design solutions that are proposed. The base sheets would be
prepared using the City’s standard format at a scale of 1” = 40’
horizontally and 1” = 8’ or 16’ vertically. Existing improvements
would be screened so that the full toned proposed improvements will
stand out. The digested base sheets will include the following:
(i) Surface and subsurface utility locations;
01203.0006/669599.3 A-3
(ii) One foot contour intervals tied to appropriate coordinate
system;
(iii) Dimensions, labels, and match lines;
(iv) Existing storm drain culverts from survey and record
drawings;
(v) Existing P/L’s and R/W locations from City’s GIS files;
(vi) Existing stationing and street name labels, as appropriate;
(vii) Existing topography to the limits described in the survey
section;
(viii) Existing Creek invert or surface profile over CL of proposed
pipe; and
(ix) Supplemental survey topography and elevation information
at key proposed improvement locations, as needed.
4. Geotechnical Feasibility Study (Performed by Subconsultant Ninyo &
Moore)
The purpose of this updated preliminary geotechnical evaluation
will be to further evaluate the existing soil, geologic, and
groundwater conditions compared to Consultant’s observations
from 2016 with respect to the revised preliminary design for
managing the drainage flow along Altamira Canyon. As per the
original RFP, this study phase of the project will NOT include any
field soil sample collection or borings, but instead will consist of
record data collection and fact finding to support the development
of preliminary design alternatives for various aspects of the project.
The scope of services includes the following:
(i) Review the existing report and other readily available
background information including geotechnical reports,
geologic and geologic hazard maps, landslide maps, and
historical aerial photographs.
(ii) Perform a geologic reconnaissance of the canyon and
vicinity by Consultant’s engineering geologists who will
observe, photograph, and document the existing site
conditions and observed physical changes since 2016.
(iii) Compile data and analyze the resulting background and field
data. The faulting and seismicity section of Consultant’s
01203.0006/669599.3 A-4
2016 report will be updated to current building code
standards.
(iv) Attend up to two (2) meetings with the City and the design
team and/or public meetings.
(v) Prepare an update report to the 2016 preliminary report
summarizing additional findings, conclusions, and
recommendations regarding the alternative designs for the
project.
B. Conceptual Design & Project Study Report (PSR)
1. Field Review. Consultant will perform a field review of the latest existing
site conditions to determine the following:
(a) Review completeness/accuracy of the computerized survey base
maps and essential topographic features.
(b) Note any new potential utility conflicts.
(c) Note any new potential issues where new storm drain and canyon
channel alignments are anticipated.
(d) Note other existing conditions that may affect the design and
alternatives.
NOTE: The Project site will be inspected by hiking and recording the
features of interest and any new potential challenges for the full extent of
the Project site within the limits of work. Consultant will identify changes
to the existing drainage components.
2. Hydrology & Hydraulics Study
(a) The previously prepared main channel hydraulic modeling will not
be revisited because it is assumed that the anticipated changed
conditions since the last study was conducted will not be significant
enough to affect the proposed hydraulic calculations. However,
Consultant will survey, photo document, and map the changed
conditions and revise the recommended impacts. For example, if
riprap rock was placed where it did not existing previously,
Consultant might recommend protecting it or replacing it to make
sure the proposed channel solution is continuous and does not have
breaches in the proposed impermeable liner and sub-drain system.
(b) Between the previous study and now extended study, Hydrology and
Hydraulics sub-consultant CWE, Inc.’s (“CWE”) evaluation of the
hydraulics of Altamira Creek will span from the Pacific Ocean to
Santa Barbara Drive and Crenshaw Boulevard at the top of the West
01203.0006/669599.3 A-5
Fork. The Hydrologic Engineering Center – River Analysis System
(HEC-RAS) software will be used for modeling the hydraulics of
the system. Previous investigations will be compared to current
conditions to determine the impacts of wet winters on the channel
and erosion of banks. Previous models of the main stem of the creek
will be used for analysis. Previously developed hydrology will be
used to determine flow rates in the watershed at specific creek bed
points of interest.
3. Field Investigation:
(a) The Altamira Canyon watershed is an approximately 860 acre
watershed located on the southern side of the Palos Verdes
Peninsula that drains into Abalone Cove. CWE will conduct field
reconnaissance and prepare a photo log of the existing conditions at
key locations along the stream channel. Sediment grain size samples
will be collected for key locations using the Wolman Pebble Count
method to estimate bed material sediment size for evaluation of
transport potential at various flow rates. Relevant existing literature
will be compiled and analyzed to describe the environmental setting.
Locations of scour and deposition will be noted. Roughness will be
estimated based on site conditions, vegetation, and bed gradation.
The bed and banks will be photographed at erosional areas and key
locations for evaluation of bank stability. Key locations will include
bridges due to accessibility, the need to understand bridge sizing
constraints, and existing conditions at the channel crossings. The
data provided by the City will be reviewed and verified during the
field investigation. The information gathered during the site visit
will be detailed in an appendix of the drainage report.
(b) A field investigation report will be prepared to document the
findings of the field investigation and will include a photo log of
photographs taken for later use in concept development and
evaluation. The field investigation report will be an appendix in the
Hydraulic Model Technical Memorandum.
4. Existing Conditions Hydraulic Model Development:
(a) A HEC-RAS model will be developed for the one-dimensional (1-
D) channel sections analysis for the entire Altamira Creek drainage
system. The model will be used to evaluate channel hydraulics for
stabilization measures based on the outputs from the hydrology
model. CWE will utilize the hydrology study and topographic
survey data to evaluate existing conditions. The model will add
cross-sections and flow data for the West Fork to the existing
conditions hydraulic model of the canyon.
01203.0006/669599.3 A-6
(b) Develop a HEC-RAS hydraulic model to evaluate the natural stream
hydraulics of the existing drainage system, specifically in the West
Fork above the reaches in the previously conducted study area. The
model will evaluate the flow depths, velocities, and water surface
elevations. The output from the model will be used to evaluate the
incipient motion of bed materials and the ability of the banks to
resist scour.
(c) The impacts of culverts and pipes on the velocities, the need for
energy dissipation, and the channel capacity will be evaluated for
the existing conditions for the flow rates from the hydrologic
analysis. The larger corrugated metal pipe (CMP) culverts in the
system may be too steep and long to be evaluated effectively using
the culvert hydraulics routine in HEC-RAS. If this appears to be the
case, the CMP will be evaluated using the Water Surface Profile
Gradient (WSPG) model developed by Los Angeles County Flood
Control District (LACFCD) and the water elevations will be used as
boundary conditions for the HEC-RAS model. The hydraulic
analysis will also evaluate scour using the 2006 LACDPW
Sedimentation Manual to evaluate potential long-term channel
changes associated with existing conditions.
(d) Each of the concepts will be modeled with three outlet works
configurations to evaluate how sensitive the system is to this design
parameter in modifying flow characteristics in the downstream
system in terms of channel velocities and shear stresses. The output
from these models will be used to evaluate stream stabilization
concepts and plans.
5. Proposed Conditions Hydraulic Analyses:
(a) Based on preliminary design section alternatives for the drainage
system, CWE will develop up to four (4) models of proposed
conditions and evaluate proposed alternatives for channel
improvements. The alternatives will potentially include culverts, rip
rap, piping, energy dissipation structures, controlled water flow,
revetments, retaining walls, gabions, retention basins, inlet and
outlet structures, and bypass systems. HEC-RAS or WSPG models
will be used to evaluate these hydraulic system modifications as
appropriate. HEC-RAS is best for open channel hydraulic systems.
WSPG is best for evaluating closed conduit and pressurized flow
systems. The models will evaluate the flow depths, velocities, and
water surface elevations. The output from the models will be used
to evaluate the incipient motion of bed materials and the ability of
the banks to resist scour. The impacts of culverts and pipes on the
velocities, the need for energy dissipation, and the channel capacity
01203.0006/669599.3 A-7
will be evaluated for the proposed alternative conditions for the flow
rates from the hydrologic analysis.
6. Hydraulic Model Technical Memorandum:
(a) A technical memorandum will be developed for the hydraulic
modeling. The memorandum will detail the data sources,
methodologies, and model results at each specified location. The
field investigation report and photo log will also be added, along
with Wolman Pebble Count data. A draft memorandum will be
prepared for internal Project team review and comments. A draft
final report will be developed based on the internal comments and
submitted to City for review and comment. The comments received
will be incorporated into the final technical memorandum. The
model will be submitted to the City for review and comment. A final
model will be prepared which incorporates City comments.
Note: Since originally proposed debris basin study was never
performed and is seen as an unlikely solution due to the lack of level
land, ease of access and inability to easily maintain, there will be no
detailed debris basin sizing analysis. However, debris basins will be
discussed within the body of the report to discuss the pros and cons
of these systems. This lack of a 10% conceptual design for the debris
basins originally proposed will not prevent debris basins from being
considered in the future during the PS&E phase.
(b) Once the existing conditions and proposed conditions alternatives
hydraulic analyses are completed, CWE will provide the results of
their study in a hydraulics report that will be combined with
Consultant’s portion of the Hydrology & Hydraulics (H&H) study.
These findings will be presented in the H&H section of the PSR and
presented at the various feedback meetings with City staff. The write
up will be straightforward and summarize the results of the
hydrology refinements and hydraulics analyses, including all
supporting calculations and hydrology drainage area map.
7. Meetings: The CWE team will attend up to six (6) one hour teleconferences
meetings, in addition to one (1) City Council meeting and one (1)
community outreach meeting. All meetings may be substituted with
teleconference meetings, such as Skype or Google Hangouts, given the
COVID-19 conditions.
8. Added Value / Team Facilitator: Consultant will be supported by a proven
project facilitator, Alan Braatvedt from Sunbeam Consulting (“Value/Team
Facilitator”), who has worked consistently well with Consultant and City
staff to help make the recent McCarrell Canyon and San Ramon Canyon
projects successful. The Value/Team Facilitator has been instrumental in
coordinating the many parties involved on said previous projects and is
01203.0006/669599.3 A-8
intimately familiar with the City, neighborhoods, groups, and agencies that
will be involved in this study phase outreach and preliminary design.
The Value/Team Facilitator’s role throughout the duration of the Project
would be as follows:
(a) Coordination with City staff and departments, including Public
Works, Parks, Engineering, Open Space Committee, and the City
Council
(b) Coordination and outreach with public groups including local
neighborhoods, the Palos Verdes Heritage Castle Museum, local
hiking and equestrian groups
(c) Assistance with public outreach efforts including presentations at
public meetings, and one-on-one interaction with residents and
group representatives
(d) Assist Consultant and City staff in identifying and dealing with
potential or realized constraints and opportunities
(e) Assist Consultant and City staff in investigation of existing canyon
conditions, including hiking the entire reach of the project area
(f) Brainstorm with Consultant and City staff on various feasible
project alternatives, and assessment of the proposed strategies /
alternatives
9. Develop Preliminary Conceptual Designs & Project Study Report (PSR)
(a) The Project Study Report (PSR) will include the development of up
to four (4) design alternatives (with the possibility of several sub-
options that can be mixed and matched with various alternatives)
that will aid in managing both stormwater flow and nuisance
water/low flows through the Altamira Canyon. The options will
include one or a combination of various mitigation measures, such
as canyon fill with armament (rip rap, Armor Flex, etc.),
culverts/pipe lines (extend existing culverts, energy dissipation
systems (controlled water flow), walls (soil-nail walls, gabions,
retaining walls, caisson revetment, etc.), retention basins/debris
basins, and inlet and outlet structures related to any pipeline system.
The study will evaluate expanded area of Altamira Canyon above
the west fork (see map on first page) and the original limits between
upper Narcissa Drive (East of Sweetbay Road) to the inlet of the
120” CMP at lower Narcissa Drive (north of PVDS) and the
downstream section located south of PVDS where the 120” CMP
outlets down to the canyon to the Pacific Ocean.
01203.0006/669599.3 A-9
(b) The PSR will be developed in accordance with Los Angeles County
(LAC) design standards. As discussed in detail in the project
approach section of this proposal the designs will be innovative and
as such some may not be covered by conventional LAC standards.
However, wherever practical, the designs will meet or exceed LAC
standards.
(c) Each of the alternate designs must include its own analysis of the
cost, schedule and difficulty associated with the easement
acquisition, geological and environmental conditions for that
particular design alternative. Each design alternative will be
evaluated against one another and summarized in a “Comparison of
Alternatives” matrix chart, similar to what was prepared for the San
Ramon Canyon Drainage design project, to assess cost,
constructability, and effectiveness of the concept in dealing with all
of the various conditions, the environmental impacts and the period
of time required for approvals, compliance and construction, etc.
(d) Ultimately a final PSR will address, at a minimum, the following:
(i) Estimate of cost to produce PS&E bid documentation based
on percentage of construction;
(ii) Documentation of survey, geological exploration,
environmental approval process;
(iii) Identification of all approvals required from
permitting/regulatory agencies;
(iv) Estimate of the cost to obtain permits from each agency;
(v) Schedule for each phase of the process, through
construction;
(vi) Possible obstructions, impacts and the required mitigation
measures;
(vii) Recommended prioritization of improvement reaches, such
as completing portions of the mid-reach channel
improvements that most impact adjacent dwellings, versus
improvements that will simply limit future erosion in the
upper and lower canyons;
Preliminary conceptual design plans will be prepared indicating the
recommended project elements for each alternative solution and
would include the following items:
01203.0006/669599.3 A-10
(i) Existing and proposed mainline Altamira Canyon design
layout plans and profiles (complete with utility crossings at
various culvert/street crossing, where applicable);
(ii) Details for conceptual structures, debris basin, and detention
basin (if any);
(iii) Trenchless and open trench installation details and typical
sections;
(iv) Other pertinent details;
(v) Utility impacts (relocations, adjustments and/or
modifications);
(vi) Canyon lining alternatives, including over-excavation
key/benches, grading, fill, impermeable membranes, sub-
drains, and side slope grading/stabilization details;
(vii) Temporary construction easement and permanent easement
acquisition needs;
(viii) Preliminary opinion of construction cost estimates for
comparison; and
(ix) A list of items requiring City feedback, along with the
Consultant’s associated recommendations;
10. Environmental Study
(a) Consultant will utilize their in-house environmental compliance
staff to revisit the previously prepared preliminary environmental
research and analysis related to the preparation of the PSR. It is
anticipated that the drainage improvements will likely be funded
with local funds, and the project would need environmental
clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
However, assuming the City might like to preserve the option of
obtaining/using federal funds, the future improvement project would
also need environmental clearance under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Consultant will revisit the
previously prepared scope and budget that identifies the appropriate
environmental documents for environmental clearance of the project
under CEQA and NEPA and any preparation of applications for
regulatory permits that will be required. The various regulatory
agencies will also be contacted to confirm requirements and
permitting costs.
01203.0006/669599.3 A-11
(b) The sub-tasks identified below outline the effort of revisiting the
previously prepared work program for conducting preliminary
environmental research and analysis related to the preparation of a
PSR for the proposed project and preparing a scope and budget for
the technical studies and the environmental document to
environmentally clear the project under CEQA and NEPA.
Consultant will revisit the previously prepared following tasks:
(i) Task E1: Project Initiation;
(ii) Task E2: CEQA Environmental Checklist;
(iii) Task E3: CEQA Environmental Proposal/City’s
environmental checklist form;
(iv) Task E4: NEPA Environmental Proposal; and
(v) Task E5: Meeting Attendance and Project Management.
(A) This task represents an active project management
role and includes attendance at various project
meetings and coordination with regulatory agencies
and interested parties. The project management role
provides a mechanism to make sure that there is an
adequate exchange of information. The
environmental team will attend up to four (4) 30-
minute teleconference calls, such as Skype or Google
Meets, given the COVID-19 conditions.
11. Temporary Construction Easement & Drainage Easement Evaluation
(a) All existing improvements and private property within limits of
work will be included per City’s electronic GIS map files so that
requirements to acquire any additional land for the proposed
improvements can be easily identified and appraised. This will be
the case for Temporary Construction Easements (TCE) and
permanent drainage easements and/or the need for acquisitions as
appropriate.
(b) A composite TCE and permanent drainage easement map will be
prepared showing the entire canyon on one or more large scale maps
and their overlap with private property (showed shaded – one shade
type for TCE’s and one for permanent drainage easements) and will
include approximate square footage TCE area and permanent
drainage easement area. Consultant will work with City staff to
establish the likely costs per square foot, if any, to obtain said
easements.
01203.0006/669599.3 A-12
(c) Because the property lines may have shifted due to past landslide
movement, any TCE or drainage easement document that will
ultimately be generated is recommended to be an independent
cohesive overarching document that is a stand-alone combined
easement not directly dependent upon the location of the existing
properties. It will be tied to controls not dependent upon the existing
properties, which could have shifted. However the overlap of each
affected property will be approximated, shown and eventually even
mapped with a legal description and map during the PS&E phase.
During this study phase the overlap acreage of each affected
property will be approximated and illustrated on a clear easy to read
exhibit for use in evaluating the various related alternatives.
NOTE: Preliminary Title Reports (PTR’s) can be obtained at an
approximate cost of $660 each, but the value of getting a PTR for
every property may not be warranted at this study phase level.
(d) There are twelve (12) properties in the expanded canyon study limits
and there are twenty eight (28) properties along the original study
limits of Altamira Canyon. This bring the total number of potentially
affected properties to forty (40), however Consultant recommends
earmarking a budget of up to ten (10) PTR’s as an optional
additional service in the fee schedule. The logic is that during this
study phase, the City will not likely need a PTR for most properties
but might want to get a few properties, such as ones with SCE power
poles and/or SCE manholes, to look for utility easements and/or at
the proposed basin locations and there access roads where expanded
easement areas would be required to look for ownership issues.
Regardless, the scope and fee does not include digesting and
mapping the property lines from the PTR’s because that task would
be a significant effort and defeats the purpose of using the GIS
generated P/L’s and R/W lines.
12. City Staff Feedback Meetings
(a) Consultant will attend up to four (4) progress meetings with City
staff (supplemented or replaced with teleconferences), with key
players from the City and Consultant present, to present and discuss
the results of the previously detailed tasks and reach preliminary
concurrence on the various elements and alternatives. These
feedback meetings will help solidify the various alternative
solutions prior to refining the previously prepared draft PSR and
environmental study, to allow efficient progress and confirmation
that the solutions remain within the City’s preferences. At each
meeting, Consultant will confirm Project schedule is on track and
prepare meeting minutes shortly thereafter.
13. Refine Project Study Report & Concept Designs per City Staff Feedback
01203.0006/669599.3 A-13
(a) As necessary, refinements would be made to the PSR and alternative
conceptual designs, plans and exhibits per the feedback received
from City staff in order to develop a presentable PSR that meets all
of the City’s goals, budgets and concerns prior to proceeding to
meetings with the community and City Council.
14. Community Outreach, City Council & Outside Agency Meetings
(a) Consistent with the previous study experience, there will be
substantial interaction and collaboration between the Consultant and
City staff in developing the concept design, so specific milestones
will be developed between the designer and the City for review,
comment and contribution. In addition to the previously mentioned
four (4) design progress meetings, there will be up to two (2)
community outreach meetings and an additional up to two (2) City
Council meetings, as required (during the startup, if needed, mid-
study, and to present the final PSR for approval). All meetings may
be substituted with teleconference meetings, such as Skype or
Google Hangouts, given the COVID-19 conditions.
(b) It is essential that the Project receives the support of the community
and thus the community outreach meetings will provide an avenue
for the transfer of the local community’s ideas and concerns, which
will be noted and incorporated into the design alternatives. City staff
will be responsible for organizing the public outreach meetings if
they are to be held in person.
NOTE: Several photo simulations will be prepared to illustrate the
“before” and “after” conditions proposed in the canyon, which is
helpful for the public to visualize what the typical cross sections will
really look like.
II. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible
work products to the City:
A. Phase 1, Task B:
1. Base mapping in AutoCAD at 1” to 40 foot scale with 1-foot interval
contours will be compiled together with a color ortho-corrected image file
that is georeferenced.
2. Sketches and photos prepared as part of the topographic augmentation will
be digitized and provided as well as ASCII point files of collected points.
B. Phase 2, Task B:
1. Draft Hydraulic Technical Memorandum detailing development of the
model and findings of the existing and proposed conditions (PDF Format)
2. Draft Final Hydraulic Technical Memorandum detailing development of the
model and findings of the existing and proposed conditions (PDF Format)
01203.0006/669599.3 A-14
3. Final Hydraulic Technical Memorandum detailing development of the
model and findings of the existing and proposed conditions (PDF Format)
III. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2, during performance of the Services,
Consultant will keep the City appraised of the status of performance by delivering
the following status reports:
1. Monthly project status reporting in the form of a conference call including
a task completion schedule and obstacles/challenges;
2. Minutes from any community outreach meeting; and
3. Memos summarizing discussions with sub-consultants specific to all
deliverables.
IV. Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services:
1. Project Team Manager: Randall Berry, P.E.
2. Project Manager: Elizabeth Reyes, P.E.
3. Survey: KDM Meridian
4. Hydraulic Studies: CWE, Inc.
5. Geotechnical Services: Ninyo & Moore, Inc.
6. Public Outreach: Sunbeam Consulting, Inc. - Alan Braatvedt
01203.0006/669599.3 B-1
EXHIBIT “B”
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
I. Section 1.1, Scope of Services, is hereby amended as follows (deletions marked in
strikethrough, additions marked in bold, italics):
“In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant
shall provide those services specified in the “Scope of Services” attached hereto as
Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to
herein as the “services” or “work” hereunder. As a material inducement to the City
entering into this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the
qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to properly perform the services
required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and professional manner,
and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated herein.
Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability,
experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants
that it shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and
services required hereunder and that all materials will be both of good quality as
well as fit for the purpose intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase
“highest professional standards” shall mean those standards of practice recognized
by one or more first-class firms performing similar work under similar
circumstances.”
II. Section 1.4, California Labor Law, subsection (i), is hereby amended as follows
(deletions marked in strikethrough, additions marked in bold, italics):
“Consultant’s Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor who will
perform work under this Agreement, Consultant shall be responsible for such
subcontractor's compliance with Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with
Section 1720) of the California Labor Code, and shall make such compliance a
requirement in any contract with any subcontractor for work under this Agreement.
Consultant shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual
provisions and ensure check subcontractor's compliance, including without
limitation, conducting a review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor
on a periodic basis or upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to
pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Consultant shall
diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any such failure by any
subcontractor.”
01203.0006/669599.3 B-2
III. Section 1.6, California Labor Law, is hereby amended as follows (deletions
marked in strikethrough, additions marked in bold, italics):
“By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants represents that Consultant (i)
has thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed,
(ii) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully
understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the
services under this Agreement. If the services involve work upon any site,
Consultant represents warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and
is or will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to
commencement of services hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent
or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of the services
hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform the City of such fact and shall not
proceed except at Consultant’s risk until written instructions are received from the
Contract Officer.”
IV. Section 2.3, Reimbursable Expenses, is hereby amended as follows (deletions
marked in strikethrough, additions marked in bold, italics):
“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 4.45, and only if specified in the Schedule of
Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the attendance of Consultant at all
project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City. Coordination of the
performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If
Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination,
Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said
meetings.”
V. Section 5.2(c), Primary/noncontributing, is hereby amended as follows
(deletions marked in strikethrough, additions marked in bold, italics):
“General Liability and Automobile Liability Ccoverage provided by Consultant
shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by
City shall not be required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required
herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess
insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain
a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory
basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall
be called upon to protect it as a named insured.”
VI. Section 5.2(l), Pass through clause, is hereby amended as follows (deletions
marked in strikethrough, additions marked in bold, italics):
01203.0006/669599.3 B-3
“A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring
under General Liability and Automobile Insurance acknowledging that
Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim
is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of liabili ty.
The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.”
VII. Section 5.2(m), Pass through clause, is hereby amended as follows (deletions
marked in strikethrough, additions marked in bold, italics):
“Consultant agrees to check ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any
other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project
by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements
required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage
and assumes all responsibility for checking ensuring that such coverage is provided
in conformity with the requirements of this section. Consultant agrees that upon
request, all agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the
project will be submitted to City for review.”
VIII. Section 7.7, Liquidated Damages, is hereby deleted in its entirety.
IX. Section 8.2, Conflict of Interest, is hereby amended as follows (deletions
marked in strikethrough, additions marked in bold, italics):
“Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or
shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner
with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant’s
performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in
the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be
employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor without the express
written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid
conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests
of City in the performance of this Agreement.
No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or
indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any
decision relating to the Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the
financial interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which (s)he is,
directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. The
Consultant represents warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give
any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.”
X. Section 9.6, Warrants & Representation of Non-Collusion, is hereby re-titled
to read “Representation of Non-Collusion, and is amended as follows (deletions
marked in strikethrough, additions marked in bold, italics):
“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
01203.0006/669599.3 B-4
participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which may affect his/her
financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership, or
association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any
corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly
interested, or in violation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The
determination of “financial interest” shall be consistent with State law and shall not
include interests found to be “remote” or “noninterests” pursuant to Government
Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant warrants and represents that it has not
paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party including, but not limited
to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration, or other thing
of value as a result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement.
Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any
act(s), omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment
of any money, consideration, or other thing of value to any third party including,
but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, as a result of consequence
of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. Consultant is aware of and
understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other conduct resulting in such
payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render this
Agreement void and of no force or effect.
Consultant’s Authorized Initials _______”
01203.0006/669599.3 C-1
EXHIBIT “C”
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Consultant shall perform the following tasks at the following rates:
TASK
SUB-
BUDGET
A. PHASE I: Orientation/Data
Collection/Base Sheets
$77,140
B. PHASE II: Conceptual
Design & Project Study
Report
$177,827
Total $254,967
II. A retention of ten percent (10%) shall be held from each payment as a contract
retention to be paid as part of the final payment upon satisfactory completion of
services.
Not Applicable.
III. Within the budgeted amounts for each Task, and with the approval of the Contract
Officer, funds may be shifted from one Task subbudget to another so long as the
Contract Sum is not exceeded per Section 2.1, unless Additional Services are
approved per Section 1.9.
IV. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of
a valid invoice. Each invoice is to include:
A. Line items for all personnel describing the work performed, the number of hours
worked, and the hourly rate.
B. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the Services.
C. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting
documentation.
D. Line items for all approved subcontractor labor, supplies, equipment, materials, and
travel properly charged to the Services.
V. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed the Contract Sum as
provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement.
VI. The Consultant’s billing rates for all personnel are attached as Exhibit C-1.
01203.0006/669599.3 C-2
Not Applicable
01203.0006/669599.3 D-1
EXHIBIT “D”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Consultant shall perform all services timely in accordance with the following
schedule. Timeline to begin with issuance of Notice to Proceed by City.
Days/Weeks to
Perform
Deadline Following
Notice to Proceed
(NTP)
PHASE 1: DATA COLLECTION/ BASE SHEETS
A. Data Collection 3.5 Weeks 3.5 Weeks
B. Base Aerial & Ground Survey 7 Weeks 7 Weeks
C. Concept Plan Sheets (Base PRJ) 2 Weeks 10 Weeks
D. Geotechnical Feasibility Study 14 Weeks 16 Weeks
PHASE II: DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT & PSR
A. Field Review (Base Project) 2 Weeks 16 Weeks
B. Hydrology & Hydraulics Study 15 Weeks 16 Weeks
C. Refine Conceptual Designs & Draft
Project Study Report
15 Weeks 24 Weeks
D. City Feedback Meetings 4 Days 24 Weeks
E. Environmental Study 14 Weeks 26 Weeks
F. Refine Easement & TCE Needs 5 Weeks 26 Weeks
G. Community Outreach Meetings 2 Days 24 Weeks
H. Refine Conceptual Design / Project
Study Report per City Feedback &
Community Feedback
14 Weeks 32 Weeks
I. Begin Funding Pursuit & Easement
Acquisition
TBD 32 Weeks
II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the
following dates.
A. Phase 1, Task B – Due to City 7 Weeks after Notice to Proceed:
1. Base mapping in AutoCAD at 1” to 40 foot scale with 1-foot interval
contours will be compiled together with a color ortho-corrected image file
that is georeferenced.
2. Sketches and photos prepared as part of the topographic augmentation will
be digitized and provided as well as ASCII point files of collected points.
01203.0006/669599.3 D-2
B. Phase 2, Task F – Due to City 16 Weeks after NTP:
1. Draft Hydraulic Technical Memorandum detailing development of the
model and findings of the existing and proposed conditions (PDF Format)
2. Draft Final Hydraulic Technical Memorandum detailing development of the
model and findings of the existing and proposed conditions (PDF Format)
3. Final Hydraulic Technical Memorandum detailing development of the
model and findings of the existing and proposed conditions (PDF Format)
C. Phase 2, Task L – Due to City 32 Weeks after NTP:
1. Draft Hydraulic Technical Memorandum detailing development of the
model and findings of the existing and proposed conditions (PDF Format)
III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in
accordance with Section 3.2.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
NOVEMBER 4, 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.
c
1
2
4
5
Description of Material
Email from Sunshine
Email from Lili Gu
Email from Jessica Leeds
Supplement Report from City Attorney Wynder; Utlity Pole Relocation
Estimated Costs; Emails from: Brad Malamud; Kathy Campbell; Jocelyn
Foust
Email from Mickey Radich
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Tuesday, November 3, 2020**.
Re~mitted,
Emily Colborn
L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\202011 04 additions revisions to agenda.docx
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com >
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 5:27 PM
To: ljacobs@scng.com
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; ezstevens@cox.net ; leneebilski@hotmail.com ;
Bjhilde@aol.com ; jessboop@cox.net; direnel@aol.com
Subject: Relevent old news. Fwd: Followup for The News. Fwd: November 4, 2020, RPV CC, Consent Calendar Item C,
PVPLC Report
This from just nineish years ago. So much for RPV's part of the California coast. Old people human
access-wise, anyway .... S
.~~ UII'J;IW
.. * PALOS VERDES PENINSULA NEWS THURSDAY, JULY 21, 20n
Spin .. makes no · sense
.I agree with all the nice things being said
about the Annenberg Foundation's proposal
except for this one thing (Discovery Park
advertisement, July 14). I also agree that we
should find locations and funding for more
active recreation facilities and I don't mean
just for our young people. ·
The city of Rancho Palo5 Verdes has. been
awarded a grant of $500,000 to improve and
"complete" the state of California's Millen·
nium Legacy Trail, i.e. the California Coastal
Trail. where it crosses the RPV Coastal Zone.
The city of RPV has received a private dona-
tion of $300,000 which possibly could be
used to correct the storm water flow pattern
as left behind by the government agency
which supervised the abatement ofthe lead
in the soil at Lower Point Vicente Park. Why
staff is not actively pursuing these basic
opportunities as opposed to spending the
money elsewhere is unfathomable.
The city of RPV was incorporated to save
our coast from overdevelopment. We have a
General Plan and a Coastal Specific Plan
[that] says thai our government should be
doing just that. Why staff has proposed a
$10,000 building at Abalone Cove and
actively advocates the Annenberg $51,000
building at Lower Point Vicente Park is
simply beyond my scope of undeJ;Standing.
In 2004, our City Council members (Stem,
Long, Clark, Wolowiez and Gardiner), voted
to not pursue offers of a gymnasium, Olym·
pic-size pool, a cultural center, et cetera, at
Upper Point Vicente Park. We have our Palos
Verdes Nature Preserve. We are still waiting
for state approval of our proposed Natural
Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP).
The city of RPV claims to be fiscally
sound. On the other hand, it made the front
page of the PV News that the windows at
City Hall leak when it rains and staff gets to
go home early when it is too hot. We don't
need a new City Hall building. We need to
pay outrageous salaries (inCluding benefits
and pe~ions), to people who want the RPV
government mechanism to save our coast
pJoolicaljy,_8._!ld ~h_ei!J!.l'~rye 1~~:!& t~~
and apieulture because tnat u wiiM m ..... es
. RPV sPecial. .
If you don't .like living with these things,
\ Ijlove to Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and such
\-where they all once were. ·r A silnshln•
1 Rancho Palos Verq~>!'i .
·-'.L.-· ----· --·--. J /-C.
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: ljacobs@scng.com
Sent: 11/2/2020 3:24:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: Followup for The News. Fwd: November 4, 2020, RPV CC, Consent Calendar Item C,
PVPLC Report
Hello Lisa,
Please turn Michael Hixon lose on a followup on his Oct. 22 article about the access to the PV
Preserve conundrum. I rather miss Nick Green's attitude about how he hasn't done his job until he
"has pissed off both sides". Michael doesn't know the real"players" in this one yet. Neither does the
City's "spokesperson", Katie Lozano.
I know that it is next to impossible to get a thorough article on a Wednesday meeting into Thursday's
PV News. Not to worry. This issue has been going on for a lot of years and the RPV Staff is still
trying to keep a lid on it. I have been blowing this whistle since 2004. It is just now starting to impact
"normal" citizens. I'll call you.
Sunshine 31 0-3778761
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: Katiel@rpvca.gov
Cc: cc@rpvca.gov , cityclerk@rpvca.gov , rond@rpvca.gov
Sent: 11/2/2020 2:29:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: Re: November 4, 2020, CC, Consent Calendar Item C, PVPLC Report
Hello Katie,
You have either missed or dodged my point. I understand what the Council has taken on as far as
producing the Preserve Comprehensive Report and Annual Report. Apparently, there is no
"downside" to the fact that PVPLC has presented it even later than usual. Your Agenda Report is
Recommending that Council"receive and file" a document which contains a proposed Work Plan for
2021 which does not take into consideration the goals of the California Coastal Trail nor the yet to be
completed designs for repairing Altamira Canyon. It also should, but does not include Public Works,
the Fire Department and the PVPLC's agreement on what TYPE of trail each of these Category Ill
trail's "narratives" should state in the draft TNP Update. No fair planting where other activities may
need to take place.
The Quarterly Forums are a Council mandated public report on the PVPLC's Preserve Management
activities not a Citizen Advisory discussion on Council initiated projects. Thank you for telling me
where their agendas and minutes are archived.
I should not have to explain to you that it is a progression of City Councils which have been directing
Staff to coordinate with all the various parties involved to "design/engineer" the preservation and
enhancement of the Peninsula's trails network with specific emphasis on the California Coastal Trail
and the Palos Verdes Loop Trail. The Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) of 1990 was drafted by a Citizen
Committee as an insert because Staff couldn't figure out how to do that, based on the general
directions in the General Plan, the Coastal Specific Plan and the Trails Network Plan (TNP). It was
working just fine until the State came up with the concept of an NCCP.
I agree with Councilman Dyda's observation that the City has created an "amusement park" without
engineering the infrastructure to support it. The February 23, 2008 City Council didn't use the same
term but they came to the same conclusion. Their approval, with many modifications of the PUMP
Committee's draft Preserve Trails Plan and the reopening of the trails was directed to be "temporary"
pending a proposal with thorough engineering. We are still waiting.
In 2012 "conflicts" were being reported so Council demanded some action and substantially approved
the 2005 Task Force's suggestions to make the TNP/CTP less "avoidable". Given the delay in the
TNP update, that clearly has not worked.
Since the November 4, 2020 Consent Calendar Item C Recommendation is limited to "receive and
file", I am pointing out the chronic avoidance that it represents. Staff needs to produce a "holistic"
plan as a proposed amendment to the Trails Network because the change of the status of the
Reserve properties from privately held to City owned is not covered in the TNP "update"
process. Specific to the Abalone Cove Reserve (the 2021 Work Plan), Staff should have noticed
(particularly after receiving my response to the 2019 Work Plan), that this old business needs to be
addressed.
It is rather thoughtless of Staff to direct the public to use the California Coastal Trail (CCT) in lieu of
the Burma Road Trail while neither have been engineered to accommodate a projection of the
volume of what sort of users. It is wasteful to expect the City Council to design these things after a
limited amount of public input (like for the parking problem near Del Cerro Park). It is even worse to
but such a poorly designed plan on the Consent Calendar without even mentioning that it is there.
FYI. Attached is the CCT "three strings" concept with the blockages as of 2007. There is not yet any
such thing as an "unauthorized" trail nor any established criteria that would suggest a need to
prevent/remedy trail widening. As a substantial part of the Circulation Element in the RPV General
Plan, the Trails Network Plan needs to be implemented while we are all waiting for the draft
consolidation and revised formatting. New concepts/changes such as the Preserve's Public Use
Master Plan (PUMP) needs to be introduced into the "big plan" as proposed amendments to the
appropriate City-wide documents only as additions which apply only within the Preserve
properties. When the whole "amusement park" has been designed and vetted at Public Hearings,
then we can start sorting out what the NCCP/HCP really means in relation to our City's public and
private infrastructure. After that, you specialists may pick and choose your next habitat restoration
areas.
Please be prepared to explain to Council and the public what your recommended Council Action
really means in the way of potential conflicts with completing the California Coastal Trail. ... S 310-
377-8761
In a message dated 11/2/2020 5:51:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, Katiel@rpvca.gov writes:
Hello Sunshine,
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence . The Preserve Comprehensive
Report and Annual Report are very specific reports required by the City's NCCP/HCP. Their required
content is detailed in Chapter 9 of the NCCP/HCP, and includes covered species surveys, habitat
tracking, a habitat restoration plan, management recommendations, night hike activities, and habitat
impact/take. City staff and the Wildlife Agencies have reviewed the reports and found that
they meet these reporting requirements.
Per the NCCP/HCP, PVPLC coordinates with City staff and the Wildlife Agencies to chose habitat
restoration areas based on specific factors, including overall contribution to Preserve habitat
restoration value and site suitability. The City and PVPLC have been providing reports on the
restoration areas at Abalone Cove Reserve during quarterly Public Forums and through Preserve
listserv messages. Staff appreciates your recommendation that more specific information be
provided on efforts to close unauthorized trails and prevent/remedy trail widening, and we will work
with PVPLC and the Wildlife Agencies to provide more detail on these topics in future reports.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
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: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com >
Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2020 6:09 PM
To: CC; CityCierk
Cc: Katie Lozano
Subject: November 4, 2020, CC, Consent Calendar Item C, PVPLC Report
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council,
I have spent the weekend watching the videos of a lot of old Council Meetings and have one thing to
say ... If you approve Staff's Recommendation to receive and file this report and ask for a hard copy,
you will get one thing ... a beautiful coffee table book just like a hard copy of the RPV General Plan.
What the Council will continue to not get is any sort of proposal which balances the region's
needs/wants for erosion control, emergency preparedness, visitor amenities, the California Coastal
Trail, the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network and neighbor's quality of life with the PVPLC's goal of
defending the future of every native plant which might thrive here on The Hill.
Do be aware that the "beautiful big book" contains the assumed approval of the PVPLC's
Work Plan for 2021 and that the Agenda Report for a Consent Calendar Item includes
Additional Management Recommendations for non-specific "close unauthorized trails" and
"repair widening trails". Is that enough for you to vote No pending a "transparent" or
"holistic" report? Let the "wildlife Agencies" wait.
You current Council Members have directed Staff to work with the PVPLC on the "use projections" in
relation to the parking situation. On February 23, 2008, the Council asked Staff to coordinate with the
PVPLC to produce a design concept which would address the long-term engineering required to
maintain a trails network which connects other cities, our parks etc. and still protect an increasing
amount of quality native habitat. The 2008 Council reviewed the PUMP Committee's trail
recommendations ... one Reserve at a time, and found them to be lacking. What they approved was
clearly to be temporary pending such a "holistic" plan
As much as they favored the "habitat" part of creating a Nature Preserve, the 2008 City Council
clearly intended to establish a beautiful balance between "pure habitat" and an "amusement
park". Compare the attached four maps of the Abalone Cove Reserve. The PVPLC's "proposed"
Work Plan for 2021 gives a little "lip service" to the big objective. The continuity of the separate, off
road corridors for pedestrians, equestrians and bicyclists, concept for the California Coastal Trail is
totally ignored (even though perfectly feasible). Engineering for both the bluff top trail crossing and
erosion control improvements in Altamira Canyon will become moot if native plants are planted taking
best as in, "blank page" engineered solutions off the table.
That happened in 2017 at Upper Point Vicente Park. Elias Sassoon "couldn't stop it". 90 percent of
this decision-making process is in the TNP Update, or not. BTW, the first TNP Update Workshop is
not on any tentative calendar for November or December. Please don't let Staff keep postponing
public reviews while they do only what they deem appropriate in favor of reduced public access all
over The Hill.
SUNSHINE
RPV
PS: I'll have to send the maps one at a time. The second one is page 190 in the Report. "The City"
already has all of them, but not at their fingertips or yours. I would appreciate individual preferences,
yes or no sometime Monday or Tuesday.
....i -~
t-
..J
~
tiJ
~
0
II( -z
0::
0 u. -..J
II(
0
H :JY3R
r;;;p..l i7r1
90JVcC
OfJU?JrY"
\ NtO,.:I
-~vM·,nv\1
--vv·-<~-~v·v·v.....,-.....
'"v--v~ ..... -v_., .....
lN'Od.
-~<t;;·3 n l'lnl}jO(l
S<'ll!lU %L
f II •
\
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Wednesday, November 4, 2020 10:26 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: Additional comments on appeal of recommendation to remove city pine tree-CASE
No.CTRP2020-0022
Attachments: appeal of recommendation to remove the pine tree-additional.docx
Late carr
From: lili@perfectlogistics.net <lili@perfectlogistics.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 12:01 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Additional comments on appeal of recommendation to remove city pine tree-CASE No. CTRP2020-0022
To City council of Rancho Palos verdes
Fm Lili Gu@3234 parkhurst
Please see attached letter with additional comments and questions relating to this subject case.
Hope will get city council review before the public hearing!
Thank you!
Thanks & Best Regards,
Lili Gu
1 I
To: City council of Ranch Palos Verdes
From: Lili Gu @ 3234 Parkhurst Dr.
Re: Appeal of recommendation of removing pine tree closely located to 3234 parkhurst Dr.
Related to: CASE CTRP2020-0022: VIEW ANALYSIS FROM THE PROPERTY AT 3255 PARKHURST DRIVE
Date : 11/3/2020
Dear City council of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I am writing to you again to point out few additional things I want to mention on this case :
1. When I purchased the property 3234 Parkhurst Dr . in 2015, the backyard of the house were full of big trees and have
a half shaded back yard. See below pictures back in 2015 . I built the playground for the kids on the shaded side of the
backyard after we moved into the house in Feb 2016. The kids have been enjoying the playground and spent a good
amount of the time on it every day for the past few years. See picture below .
2. Below pictures will show how the view was from 3255 parkhurst back in 2012, 2015, 2018 and current . As
you can see the view in 2015 when they purchased house, and compare with the view they have now. I
am not sure what more view the city wants to restore for them? They have already gained more view
than what they had when they purchased the house and that's what they paid for . Because I have been
trimming and cleaning up the backyard, now they have gained much more view than before.
2018/1
They current view showing on city supplied picture, the pine tree has not been trimmed for the past 2
years after the city determined it was a city tree back in Oct 2018.
The 3'd picture I got from the google map dated 2018 Jan, showing how the tree looked like back then
after I have been trimming it for three years since 2015 after I bought the house .
3. My question to the city is : why the city wants to remove an old healthy beautiful pine tree, just to give
3255 Parkhurst residence more view than what they paid for in 2015, to restore the view they have never
had before? On the other hand, by removing this pine tree, the city will take away the shaded yard and
big tree I paid for when I bought my house in 2015. Even though the pine tree later was determined a city
tree, but when I bought my house, that's what I thought I paid for.
4 . Even though on my appeal letter I mentioned our family needs of the shaded yard and how important the
pine tree is to our family's daily living life, but seems the city staff doesn't think our needs is as important
as 3255 resident's need . Why? Just because I am an Asian minority, single mother with two little kids, so
nobody cares? Didn't we pay tax every year same as others? Shouldn't we get same rights and same
treatment and shouldn't the city consider our family needs as well? Just because it's a city tree, when the
city make the decision, should consider every resident's need, not just favor one over the other. I think
the kids living life needs should be more important than the little tip top view. Removing the pine tree,
means our kids will not have a shaded yard for at least 10 years, and cannot play in the playground much
during most of the days in the year.
5. The last thing I want to point out is, "the best view from the house", if you turn 10 degree to the left of
the picture, it has more ocean and open view, why have to face the pine tree direction? They didn't see
those trees in front of their view when they purchased house? If they can't live with these trees in front of
their view, why they bought this house? Or they knew they could have everyone cut their trees and gain
all the full ocean view anyway after purchasing the house? If that's ok, then the full view house will not as
value as it is now, if people can always CREATING more view later.
Best regards,
Lili Gu
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Wednesday, November 4, 2020 2:38 PM
CityCierk
FW: ADU 17.02 tonights CC meeting Nov. 4, 2020
CC 17.02 ADU Nov. 4, 2020.docx
From: jessboop <jessboop66@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 2:23 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; jessica <jessboop66@cox.net>
Subject: ADU 17.02 tonights CC meeting Nov. 4, 2020
Please include the attached letter for tonight's City Council meeting
Thank you so much
1
Jessica Leeds
818 399-2408
Re: 17.02 ADU
Dear City Council:
I believe we, in Rancho Palos Verdes, for the most part, do not
have room for additional ADU. Some of our homes are on lot
sizes of approximately 5,000 square feet. Some of us only have
one parking space on the street.
Where will there be room for another unit?
If someone wants to convert a garage, where will those people
park? If you say it is okay to build another unit on the property,
where will they park?
Currently if someone wants to convert a garage to habitable
space, they are required to build another garage. That's great.
In some cases, there is no additional room on the property to
build an accessory unit, or garage. Yeah!!!
In addition, because we are all so close together, have you
considered the noise factor? We live in Rancho Palos Verdes for
our views, privacy, weather, community size, etc.
You, the City Council, represent the homeowners in Rancho
Palos Verdes; please do not sell us short.
ADU's are not for Rancho Palos Verdes. If additional UNITS are
needed in this community, give a piece of land somewhere and
build some more units.
Also, we in RPV towards the ocean, have one lane in and one
lane out, Palos Verdes Drive South. With Terrenea, and the
Trump National staff coming in for 2 to 3 shifts a day, traffic
already has increased tremendously. What if there was an
emergency; earthquake, fire, emergency ambulance, etc. how
would people get out. The medians are being removed for turn
lanes, etc., so think about these issues.
The new development off Western Avenue has approximately
700 homes!
We are too crowded as it is. We are becoming a Manhatten
Beach; how sad. I don't care to live there.
Please take all this in and if you insist, this notice should go out
to all Rancho Palos Verdes residents so the residents are aware
of the City's attempt to change our way of life.
Thank you,
Best Regards,
Jessica Leeds
(~rTYOF
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
f<ANCHO f:JALOS VERDES
MEETING DATE: 11/04/2020
AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
City Attorney's supplement to Staff Report on relocating certain utility poles and
power lines at 3867 Crest Road.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Include this supplement in the Staff Report of the same date.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ORIGINATED BY: William Wynder, City Attorney
REVIEWED BY: Elena Gerli, Assistant City Attorney
REQUESTED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
BACKGROUND:
We have been directed by the City Manager to provide a public response to certain letters
sent to the City and City Council from Attorney Brad Malamud on behalf of Rancho
Palos Verdes Estates Community Association (HOA).
Attorney Malamud advises that he sent a letter dated October 30, 2020, a
Supplemental Letter No. 1, dated November 1, 2020, and a Supplemental Letter No. 2,
dated November 3, 2020. Unfortunately, after a diligent search the City can find no
evidence that an October 30, 2020 letter was ever received by the City or by the Office
of the City Attorney.
A. RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER NO. 1
Attorney Malamud's arguments revolve around a central premise, with which we
respectfully disagree: (1) that the Funiciellos are proposing to relocate public utility
power poles and transmission lines onto private property, and (2) there is no legal basis
for allowing this encroachment.
!f.
He further argues that the proposed location of the poles is within a City easement, but
on private property, and that the Funiciellos cannot use the City's easement to locate utility
poles because the Funiciellos are not a utility. He further argues that the issuance of the
permit is discretionary, and the "City" (without identifying whom at the City he is referring
to) can therefore deny it.
Attorney Malamud also makes a distinction between the easement and the right-of-
way, but it is not clear what the argument here is (it should be noted that "right-of-way"
refers to the use of the property, and can be either an easement or in fee interest).
At the risk of repeating what has been carefully reviewed in prior staff reports, Tract Map
33206 was filed with the County on October 22, 1979, to subdivide property owned by
Shapell Industries, Inc. ("Developer") for the development of the residential project
commonly known as "Rancho Palos Verdes Estates" ("Development"). On that Map (at
Book 930, Pages 54 and 56) Developer specifically abandoned all prior private streets,
acknowledged that Crest Road was a public road and also dedicated additional
easements within the Development to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City").
As noted in the Map Dedication, Crest Road was a public street existing prior to the Map
being filed in 1979. The Developer's Statement on the Map specifically indicated that
the Developer acknowledged "[a]s a dedication to public use ... all of Crest Road
within or adjacent to this subdivision remains a public street, we hereby abandon
all rights of direct vehicular ingress and egress from abutting lots to the said street." This
statement confirms that Crest Road was a public street existing in 1979.
Public rights-of-way are exclusive meaning the City has exclusive control of the road and
the underlying fee owner may not control the use of the land. The rule is that a city has
the right to use a dedicated street and this right is paramount to the rights of abutting
owners regardless of whether they own the fee to the center of the street or not. (Hayes
v. Handley (1920) 182 Cal. 273, 281-84; Berkley v. Gordon (1968) 264 Cai.App.2d 461,
464-65 [Defendants argue in support of the judgment, however, that plaintiff has not
established its claim to the street, since no documents of title were introduced in evidence
and since it is presumed that defendants as abutting owners own to the center of the
street. ... The state of the title, however, is immaterial since it is conceded that University
Avenue is a public street.], Fallon v. City & County of San Francisco (1941) 44 Cai.App.2d
404.)
Accordingly, unless vacated, the underlying owner (be it the HOA or otherwise) simply
does not have any rights other than as an abutter meaning the owner has a right to access
the Crest Road from one access point designated on the Tract Map. However, the Map
Dedication terminated all abutter's rights.
A right-of-way is exclusive to the governmental agency and may not be used for other
purposes by the servient property owner (except for limited abutter's rights). If a street in
easement is vacated, the adjacent property owners on each side thereafter own and can
use to the middle of the vacated street area.
2
Therefore, the City owns an exclusive right-of-way some of which may be across the
HOA's common areas adjacent to Crest Road. The HOA has no right to use or control
that portion of Crest Road unless or until the City abandons its right-of-way. The right-of-
way measures 1 00' in width, 50' on either side of the center line, and includes the
improved roadway and unimproved land.1
B. RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER NO. 2
Attorney Malamud makes reference to the City "General Plan" as well as Chapter 12.12
of Title 12 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC). Chapter 12.12 deals
with the process of forming underground utility assessment districts. Respectfully,
neither argument is relevant to the issuance of an encroachment permit, which is
governed by Chapter 12.04 of Title 12 of your municipal code (the staff report has
provided you with a detailed analysis with which our office agrees).
1. The General Plan. The General Plan, sets the vision of the City in the form
of goals and aspirational policies. The Municipal Code is the implementing document for
those goals. In regards to undergrounding of utilities, as noted above, Chapter 12.12
provides regulations for forming an undergrounding assessment district while Chapter
17.54 of the Municipal Code requires all new development projects to underground
utilities. Additions for residential projects are exempt from this requirement.
2. Chapter 12.12. This chapter is unrelated to the issuance of an
encroachment permit, which, as noted in the staff report, is governed by the entirely
separate Chapter 12.04 in your Municipal Code. Chapter 12.12 of the RPVMC deals with
the formation of an underground utility assessment district (a so-called Rule 20B
district) through a process established by the municipal code with overarching
requirements imposed by Proposition 218 (requiring majority property owner approval). 2
Forming an underground utility assessment district can be initiated by following the Rule
20 guidelines adopted by Southern California Edison (SCE), as required by the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). SCE Rule 20 has three common sections: A, B and
C Which are briefly described directly below.
Moreover this1 00-foot right-of-way (50 feet on each side of the center line) exists around
the tract up to about Paseo Del Pino. From Paseo Del Pino westward the south 50 feet is
confirmed to be a public street; the north 50 feet is designated a private street. However, that
designation is no longer legally valid because the City certainly has acquired a right-of-way in
this so-called private street by prescriptive easement. (See, Civil Code§ 1009(d).)
2 The CPUC's web site discusses Rule 208 undergrounding districts as follows: "Projects
in larger developments or areas that do not meet [Rule 20A] criteria can be performed as Rule
208 projects. At a minimum, the proposed project should involve both sides of a street for a
minimum of 600 feet. The applicant (residents, city, developer) is responsible for the installation
of the conduit, substructures and boxes, as well as paying for the cost to complete the installation
of the underground (electric, telephone and cable) system."
3
RULE 20A: Rule 20A districts are paid for and constructed by SCE through annually
allocated credits to the City. The annual credit allocation is relatively small, and it takes
many years to accrue enough credits for an undergrounding project. The City selects
projects with a public benefit and within the budget of the accrued annual credits. To
qualify as a Rule 20A project, the location should have a heavy concentration of overhead
facilities, be heavily traveled, be an arterial or major collector road, or must be located
within or pass through a civic, recreational, or scenic area.
RULE 208: The City or residents may propose a Rule 208 project which is formed as an
Assessment District under Municipal Code Chapter 12.12. The boundaries of Rule 208
projects must be agreed to by the City or the residents and SCE. The majority of the
undergrounding costs are typically paid for by the residents within the district. SCE is
responsible for contributing the cost of building a new equivalent overhead system.
RULE 20C (Private Projects): A privately financed undergrounding project is handled
exclusively by property owners and the utility companies. This approach can save
financing and administration costs associated with an assessment district. The Crest
Road Project is a Rule 20C project not governed by Chapter 12.12 of your Municipal
Code.
Attorney Malamud errs in his comparison of this Rule 20C privately funded relocation
of public utility power powers and transmission wires to the process of forming an
underground utilities assessment district under Rule 208. The Municipal Code does not
require a public hearing for Rule 20C privately funded undergrounding projects. 3 Once
SCE has approved the proposed undergrounding (which SCE has now done twice), the
remaining issue is the issuance of an encroachment permit for work in the City's right-of-
way.
3 Rules 20C projects are defined on the CPUC's website as follows: "Rule 20C projects
are less than 600 feet in length and typically involve one or more property owners. The
applicant(s) bear the cost of the entire undergrounding project and receive a small credit for the
salvage cost of the facilities, less depreciation, that do not go underground."
4
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:53 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: 3867 Crest Road Utility Relocation
Attachments: 3867 Crest Road Utility Relocation Estimated Costs.pdf
Late carr
From: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:11 PM
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; William Wynder
<wwynder@awattorneys.com>; tngfuni@aol.com; Dale Spiegel <spiegda@gmail.com>; Kathy Campbell
<kclll@cox.net>; Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: 3867 Crest Road Utility Relocation
Mayor and City Council,
As noted in the subject staff report, on October 26, a meeting was held between the various stakeholders to obtain cost
information and to discuss the feasibility of beginning the SCE undergrounding on the Funicello property.
The cost information was provided in the staff report, however, upon obtaining further clarification and analyzing the
information received, staff has prepared the attached reconciliation of the costs for each of the design scenarios that
have been discussed. Because this was completed subsequent to the staff report being distributed, staff wants to share
this with you prior to tonight's meeting.
The costs shown in the spreadsheet are based on SCE invoices, contractor invoices and contractor estimates as provided
by the Funicellos. Estimated costs shown are not final costs and are subject to change.
Sincerely, Ken
Ken Rukavina, PE
Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
l<n.!kavina@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5227
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
3867 Crest Road Utility Relocation Estimated Costs
Design #1 Design#2 Desi gn #3 Design #4
Origi na I Design -
Full underground of Three SCE poles s/s One SCE pole s/s Underground all SCE lines, inc . Crest Rd, i nc . Cr es t Rd; two SCE utilities from pol e
pede sta Is for overhead switch; poles/switch on on 3867 Cre st Rd to
switch on s/s of ove rhead com City lot; overhead City lot (two pole s
Cr est Rd; overhead lines s/s of street com lin e s s/s of w/switch)
com lin es s/s of street
stree t
SCE Lin es
SCE conduits/conductors $ 391,468.42 $ 215,016.90 $ 215,016.90 $ 305,216 .90
Additiona I Co sts-Retaining Wa 11/Pad (e st) $ 145 ,000 .00
Additiona l Costs -Additional Design (es t) $ 2,700.00 $ 2 5,000 .00
SCE Work Subtotal $ 536,468.42 $ 215,016.90 $ 217,716.90 $ 330,216.90
Communication Lin e s ~, ~· w• ~ --,;·· ·~·;
Communic ation Lines Subtotal $ 85,970.00 $ 85,970.00 $ 85,970.00 $ 148,670.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 622,438.42 $ 300,986.90 $ 303,686.90 $ 478,886.90
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:56 PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Response to Funiciellos Encroachment Permit Hearing
Nov 4th Council Meeting Response.pdf
From: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:52 PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Response to Funiciellos Encroachment Permit Hearing
From: Brad Malamud <brad@malamuds.com>
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 4:21 PM
To: wwynder@awattornevs.com; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>;
Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>;
Barbara Ferraro <barbara .ferra ro@ rpvca .gov>; CC@ rpvca .gov
Subject: Response to Funiciellos Encroachment Permit Hearing
Attached please find my letter on behalf of my client, the Rancho Palos Verdes Estates Community Association.
1 !I
I
Law Offices Of Brad Malamud
2340 S. El Camino Real, Suite 1
San Clemente, CA 92672
949-212-2834 I brad(ii1malamuds.cmn
October 30,2020
To Council Members, City Manager and City Attorney (by email only)
RE: Staff Report Regular Business Item 4: "Receive and File ... Relocating Certain Utilitv
Poles at 3867 Crest Road."
Nowhere in the Staff Report does the Staff indicate when this process began nor that the
Funiciellos initially requested a permit to relocate all utility lines underground. Why wasn't
that mentioned?
Nowhere in the Staff Report does the Staff indicate why these utility lines should not
remain on the Funiciellos' property, or be placed underground on the Funiciellos' property,
which would be far less expensive and would not involve an Encroachment Permit or the use of
HOA or City property.
The simplest and least expensive alternative, not mentioned in the Staff
Report, is for the Funiciellos to underground these utilities on their own
property. The Funiciellos would save money, and neither the HOA nor the
City would be involved. WIN, WIN, WIN.
Why isn't relocating the utilities underground on the Funiciellos' property the City
Staff's Preferred Alternative? That is a question the Council should consider and ask at the
Council Meeting.
The HOA has repeatedly stated it would work with the Funiciellos:
Undergrounding all utility lines (on HOAproperty), at Funiciellos' sole
expense, is the only basis upon which the HOA would consider granting
some type of limited easement to allow this project to go forward, and that
would be based solely on being a good neighbor.
ANALYSIS OF STAFF REPORT:
The Council is being asked to:
Receive and file a status report on issuance of an encroachment permit to
relocate certain utility poles from 3867 Crest Road to across the street and
onto the City right-of-way along Crest Road.
The only action properly before the Council is:
"an encroachment permit to relocate certain utility poles from 3867 Crest
Road ... onto City right-of-way along Crest Road."
1
The City does not have a right-of-way alongside/adjacent to Crest Road on HOA
property ("adjacent property") for purposes of utility poles or lines. If a right-of-way exists on
the adjacent property, and it does not exist, the right limited to the City Utility Easement, and
there is no right-of-way.
The Developer/BOA did not grant a right-of-way on its property adjacent to Crest Road,
and the City Attorney and Staff have not provided any evidence or basis for such a claim or legal
right.
The supposed basis for this right-of-way is the conditional abandonment of vehicular
access over the adjacent property. Abandonment of vehicular access does not create a right-of-
way including but not limited to vehicular access or utility use. Nor does the absence of
vehicular access have anything to do with, and does not create, a City utility right-of-way. And,
even if it does, which it doesn't, nobody has made the argument that this right-of-way over
utilities can be assigned or utilized by a non-utility entity or person(s), here the Funiciellos, let
alone SC Edison or another Funiciello contractor(s).
Encroachment Permit
The following discussion is limited to an Encroachment Permit over, below, or on Crest
Road, not the HOA's private adjacent property.
An encroachment permit limits encroachment to work and access: 1) below, 2) on, or 3)
above Crest Road. It is not a permit to enter, alter, install, or build upon or under HOA's
adjacent property. Ask him, and the City Attorney will verify this fact.
The City Council has the legal right under a DISCRETIONARY encroachment permit to
grant or DENY the Funiciellos' request for the encroachment permit.
The HOA asks the Council to deny the DISCRETIONARY
Encroachment Permit for the reasons set forth in detail below.
Granting the permit will promote/precipitate requests from other residents of RPV to
relocate utilities from their side of the street to their neighbors' side of the street.
Approval here would create bad policy. If encroachment permits are granted, once
relocated, the now burdened homeowners will request relocating the utilities back to the original
location. And it will go on forever. This will create a never-ending Ping Pong game of permits
and relocation ofutilities; back and forth. Surprisingly, the Staff Report failed to mention or
discuss this clear policy dilemma. It is critical that the Council discusses this policy concern
before approving/granting the encroachment permit.
The Funiciellos have not Made a Request with the City to Access
or Build upon the HOA's Adjacent Property and the Funiciellos have no Independent
Right to Access or Build on the HOA's Adjacent Property
Critically, the Funiciellos have not requested the City's permission to relocate utility
poles or lines onto Crest Road adjacent HOA property (the City cannot, under state law, grant
2
the Funiciellos use of the City's utility easement on the HOA's Crest Road adjacent property
because neither of the Funiciellos are a California utility company and because there is no need
or necessity which is required to burden the HOA property under a utility easement). The City's
utility easement is limited in scope and because the relocation is being requested merely to
beautifY the Funiciellos' property, there is no need or necessity which is required to burden the
HOA servient tenement.
The Staff Report fails to state any legal right the Funiciellos have to enter onto HOA
property, even if the encroachment permit is granted. Neither the Funiciellos nor their attorney
have stated any legal basis for trespassing on HOA property or a legal basis to relocate utility
poles and lines onto HOA property.
states:
The Staff Report highlights the previous October 20 City Council meeting discussion and
However, it was also noted that this did not eliminate the 16-kilovolt lines
crossing to the south side of Crest Road, nor the need for the two additional
utility communication poles on the south side of the street to accommodate
Crown Castle, Cox Communications, and Frontier.
The Staff Report states the City's "four key issues":
The following four key issues were raised during the October 20 City Council
meeting:
I. Can the utilities be undergrounded beginning on the Funiciello property,
including the communication lines, in order to eliminate poles on the south side of
Crest Road;
2. What are the costs including to underground the project;
3. Disposition ofright-ofway; and
4. Authority of the Public Works Director to issue an encroachment permit for this
work.
The HOA request the City Council add to following key items to the Staff list of issues:
1. Should the City Council approve (if even allowed) the Funiciellos request to relocate
utilities and eliminate poles from the north (Funiciello side) of Crest Road onto HOA
private property on the south side of Crest Road?
2. What are the actual verified costs of fully undergrounding the project?
3. Regardless of "disposition of the right-of-way," under what grant, right, or law can
the Funiciellos, their contractors, SC Edison, Crown Castle, Cox Communications
and Frontier Communications enter onto HOA property to install utility lines or poles
on HOA private property as there is no easement to the Funiciellos or any of these
entities?
4. Even if authorized, any encroachment permit limits work/building/encroachment to
Crest Road. There is no permit or legal right to trespass, build, construct or install
anything on HOA property. Nor has any additional grant or permit been requested by
3
the Funiciellos. Nor is the issue of any such additional grant or permit properly
before the Council.
5. The Funiciello contractors illegally cut down 4 mature trees on HOA private property
and cannot proceed, even if otherwise permitted, until the HOA is fully compensated,
which includes statutory treble damages. The total amount owing by the Funiciellos
to the HOA is approximately $540,000, not the $1,708. improperly solicited by the
City Staff. Exhibit L states the payment was rendered, but was not deposited. The
amount solicited by the City is less than the amount that the contractor charges to
remove ONE tree.
Further Comments on body of the Staff Report:
Funiciello Payments to Contractors:
The amount paid to date by the Funiciellos is not relevant here. It does not establish a basis
for approving an encroachment permit. If it did, then all that anyone would have to do is spend
money and claim entitlement. There is no legal basis for this proposition. Instead, the Council
must determine whether to approve or deny the encroachment permit based on the merits.
Nonetheless, the Staff Report discussion ofFuniciello payments requires a few comments.
1. The Staff Report falsely represents that the Funiciellos have paid SC Edison $340,000.
First, any amount paid is immaterial. Second, there is no evidence of a payment, for
example a cancelled check, a wire transfer, or that the amount is anything other than a
payment for work to date plus a deposit for future work, which deposit is fully or partially
refundable. As indicated in the Staff Report, total DEPOSITS paid appears to be $215,000.
Exhibit I. Again, there is no independent verification or confirmation of payment.
2. The $90,200 additional cost estimate appears entirely related to Crest Road issues.
At this time, the Funiciellos have provided a cost estimate from one
contractor, CSI Services, in the amount of$90,200 (Attachment J). The scope
of work includes traffic control, undergrounding raceway for SCE, street
trench, installing pipe, backfill, asphalt patch work, and permits.
An Encroachment Permit is a Discretionary Decision
3. The HOA does not contest that the City has the right to grant a discretionary encroachment
permit over, on, or above Crest Road. The statements below confirm that the encroachment
permit is limited to Crest Road (as is confirmed in RPVMC). An encroachment permit is
limited to the street. It is not a permit to build on a supposed utility right-of-way.
This limitation is confirmed by the City Attorney:
4
Public rights-of-way are exclusive meaning the City has exclusive control of
the road and the underlying fee owner may not control the use of the land.
(Emphasis added)
4. The Staff Report is misleading. An encroachment permit is expressly limited by RPVMC to
"city streets"; there is no debate on this issue. The City Attorney states he can opine yet he
cannot state this legal conclusion with certainty. Instead of case law or legal authority, he
provides a "considered opinion." Is this different that some other type of opinion?
Tract Map 33206
Therefore, the City Attorney's office remains of the considered legal opinion
that Tract Map 33206 specifically confirms that the City has an exclusive
right-of-way in that portion of Crest Road "adjacent" to the HOA 's tract.
The HOA has no right, title, or interest in that portion of Crest Road unless or
until the City abandons its right-of-way.
Do not confuse this misdirection. Any "right-of-way" is over Crest Road, which road
is located adjacent to the HOA Property. The City Attorney did not provide a considered
legal opinion that the "right-of-way" is over the "HOA Adjacent Property."
The second sentence is critical to an understanding and limitation of the first
sentence. "The HOA has not right ... in that portion of Crest Road ... " This is clarified
in a July 21, 2020, Simon Young with LA County email at 8:12am: "Yes, the northerly
boundary of lot 82 is the southerly line of Crest rd." Thus, Mr. Young confirmed that the
HOA has a fee interest in Lot 82 (the adjacent property." Thus, it is clear that the City
Attorney's opinion is limited to Crest Road; period.
Thus, the City's rights, here described as a right-of-way, is not a right-of-way over
the HOA' s adjacent property. The right-of-way is limited to "that portion of Crest
Road."
Therefore, the Staff and City Attorney's attempt to state that an encroachment permit
over Crest Road extends, based on Tract Map 33206's "right-of-way" is baseless. By the
City Attorney's own statement, per the Staff Report, any right of the City is limited to
"that portion of Crest Road."
Tract Map 33206 specifies:
There is an "easement dedicated for public utilities including the right to make
connections from adjoining properties."
The Funiciellos are not an "adjoining property.
The dedication is for an easement, not a grant of a right-of-way. There is no mention
of a right-of-way "confirmed" to the City by the Developer.
The Developer abandoned all rights of direct vehicular ingress and egress from
abutting lots to said street (Crest Road).
The City Attorney's opinion is double-talk, inarticulate, and apparently intentionally
misleading. This two-sentence statement is supposedly the basis for the Funiciellos to
5
build on, above, and below BOA's adjacent property. Yet is it clear that this right is not
derived from Tract Map 33206 right-of-way (not mentioned therein).
The City Attorney fails to mention how the City obtained an "exclusive right-of-
way," (which does not appear anywhere on Tract Map 33206) the extent of the right-of-
way, or what type of right-of-way the City obtained.
Is this right-of-way vehicular (as that was what was abandoned) or utility based (as
that was not involved in the Developers' decision to abandon vehicular access on the
adjacent property)? There is no legal basis for either, but critically, there is no discussion
of any utility right-of-way over HOA adjacent property in the Tract Map.
The City Attorney admits the City's supposed right-of-way is EXCLUSIVE, meaning
it cannot be used by the Funiciellos, yet fails to mention what exclusive rights the City
has (See above).
One thing is clear: The City does not own a right-of-way on the HOA property
adjacent to Crest Road.
This attempt to suggest or imply a valid City right-of-way over HOA adjacent
property is a creation of the City Attorney only first appeared only after there was no
remaining legal basis to justifY the Funiciellos' relocation to the HOA property adjacent
to Crest Road.
Each prior justification was refuted, successfully, by the HOA and Ms. Campbell
when the City Attorney stated the basis was 1) the City utility easement, and 2) the City's
supposed fee interested in the adjacent property. See, Simon Young email clarifying that:
"Yes, the northerly boundary oflot 82 is the southerly line of Crest rd." Thus, lot 82 is a
fee interest owned by the HOA.
It is beyond dispute that the HOA owns the fee interest in all adjacent property
to the South of Crest Road.
It is beyond dispute that the City does not have the legal right to assign or
permit the Funiciellos any interest in its utility easement over the adjacent HOA
property.
It is beyond dispute that an encroachment permit does not allow the Funiciellos
or their contractors to enter onto or build on the HOA property adjacent to Crest
Road.
The Umpire Calls Strike Three.
After being called out, the City Staff and City Attorney, advocates for the Funiciellos,
came challenged the call, arguing Right-of-Way. But that does not work. (See above).
The Staff and City Attorney do not make the argument that the supposed right-of-way
is over HOA private property, in fact limiting this supposed right-of-way to Crest Road.
As outlined in detail above, abandonment of vehicular access does not create a utility
right-of-way. It doesn't even create a vehicular right-of-way. In fact, it doesn't create
any right-of-way.
The issue of utilities on the adjacent HOA property is fully covered by a specific
limited easement granted to the City -an exclusive City utility easement.
6
Abandonment of vehicular access is unrelated to, and has no relationship to, utilities
and does not create a utility right-of-way.
More to the point, the City Staff Report offers no explanation or legal authority to
support this right-of-way theory. Simply put, a conditional defeasible dedication and
abandonment ofvehicular access is unrelated to utility access, right-of-way, and even if it
does, the City Attorney limits the right-of-way to Crest Road.
Under applicable law, the City's limited utility easement and its supposed right-of-
way cannot be broadly read to permit the City to expand any incidental use by the City to
include the Funiciellos. The City Attorney's statement at the October 20 City Council
meeting was expressly rejected by the court in Schmidt v. Bank of America.
5. The City Attorney has admitted that the City does not own a fee interest in HOA
property adjacent to Crest Road. So did Mr. Simon Young. (See above). The City does
not have a right-of-way to the adjacent property. The Developer conditionally
abandoned vehicular access on the adjacent property. There would be no reason to have
two parallel roads, and the adjacent property was not going to be used to ingress or
egress HOA homes or other properties. Abandonment does not create a City right-of-
way over the adjacent property.
No "right-of-way" was therefore granted, nor is whatever was granted, if anything, a
right given to the City to allow a private citizen(s) including the Funiciellos, to
relocate the burden of utility poles and lines into the adjacent HOA private property.
The City Attorney provides no legal basis for the Funiciellos' use of the City Utility
easement, supposed right-of-way over Crest Road, or other legal interest that allows the
Funiciellos to relocate utility poles and lines from their private property onto HOA's
adjacent private property.
Decision to Deny or Grant the EP:
In making a discretionary decision grant of an encroachment permit to the Funiciellos,
the Council is required to have an open mind and to weigh the PROS and CONS. Yet the City
Staff Report fails to list Pros and Cons. Why is that? Because the Staff and the City Attorney
appear to have transformed themselves into advocates for the Funiciellos rather than act as
independent fact finders.
A. Wlty a discretionary Encroachment Permit (the singular subject of this Council
Agenda Item) should be granted or denied.
Below is a list of the Pros and Cons for Council review and analysis.
REASONS TO DENY THE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT:
The City Council has the legal right to deny the Encroachment Permit and is
immune from liability for its denial as stated by the City Attorney on the record.
7
One citizen should not be allowed to remove a burden from his/her private property and
relocate it onto another resident's private property.
If granted, this precedent will allow any property owner to force the City to grant an
Encroachment Permit to relocate utility poles and lines onto his/her neighbor's property
as a matter of right. This is not only a dangerous and improper decision, but will
promote conflict by pitting neighbor against neighbor.
The HOA owners bought their property without poles and lines on the HOA property.
The Funiciellos bought their property with these poles and lines on their property.
The Encroachment Permit, under RPVMC, only covers "City Streets" and does not
allow the Funiciellos to continue the lines or place poles on HOA property, regardless of
whether the City has a "right-of-way" for 50 or 100 feet. Thus, with only an
Encroachment Permit, the Funiciellos cannot relocate the Poles or Lines onto HOA
property or any supposed right-of-way.
The HOA will, consistent with its rights, seek trespassing damages if anyone enters that
property to move land, dig, or in any way attempt to build poles or place lines on HOA
property.
REASONS TO GRANT THE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT:
The City is permitted to grant this discretionary permit. [The City chooses to exercise its
discretion to grant a permit that creates a public safety hazard and promotes conflict,
even though none of the normal City processes or rules have been followed?]
The Funiciellos desire to beautify their property at someone else's expense
The reasons, and equities, to deny the encroachment permit far outweigh the reasons, and
equities, for approval.
Simply put, the only reason to approve the encroachment permit is because it will
unburden/beautify the Funiciellos' property. But the opposite is also true: if poles and lines are
relocated (rather than undergrounded) then the burden would be placed on HOA property.
Absent a clear necessity (and there is none, even SC Edison prefers not to relocate the utilities)
there is no legal right to relocate the utilities and burden another private property owner.
Illegal Removal of Trees and Condition of Payment or
Replacement Before Any work Can Begin
California Civil Code Section 733 and related Code of Civil Procedure Sections 3346 and
1029.8 allow for damages for wrongful removal or damage to trees (and possibly attorneys' fees
if the person who removed the trees was not licensed). As part of the Funiciellos' conditions for
the Encroachment Permit, City Condition 12 requires restoration of the trees or payment of
damages before any work on the Encroachment Permit can begin.
8
Under applicable California case law, the HOA can recover for the damage caused to the
aesthetic value of the tree. Four mature pine trees which form an integral part of the Grand
Entrance into the HOA community were illegally removed, damaging the entry landscape and
aesthetics.
It is unclear why the City, not the HOA, requested payment for the trees, or the basis
upon which an arborist opined (if the City even obtained an arborists thoughtful opinion-and if
it did the opinion was not shared with the public or HOA) the cost of replanting 4 mature trees is
$1,708.
The HOA has not yet determined the amount it will cost to replace the 4 trees, but its
initial investigation, which is far from complete, indicates replanting will cost at least $140,000,
possibly far more.
Before use of any encroachment permit, if granted, pursuant to Condition 12, the
Funiciellos are required to either replace the 4 mature pine trees, or pay the HOA the amount the
HOA will be required to pay to replace the trees (based on the HOA's arborist's estimate and or
agreement of the parties).
The Funiciellos also will be required to pay the HOA treble damages, possibly attorneys'
fees, as well as damages for the loss of aesthetic value. The total could be in excess of $600,000.
And, because this was a pre-condition (Condition 12 to the May 2019 Crown Castle Permit-see
Staff Report Exhibit L) this payment is required to be made before the Funiciellos may proceed
with the project under the encroachment permit, if granted.
Until the HOA and the Funiciellos resolve the trees issue, granting of an encroachment
permit should be stayed until resolution is finalized.
DISCUSSION OF STAFF REPORT CONCLUSION:
Below is an analysis of the Staff Report's conclusion. Below each statement is
the HOA's comment.
Issuance of the encroachment permits was conditioned on the City being
reimbursed the cost to replace the trees illegally cut down by the Applicants' contractor.
This is true, but this was a predicate, a requirement, not related in any
way to the other conditions to obtain an Encroachment Permit. However,
the payment/replacement is due the HOA, not the City, and the amount is
far in excess of $1,708. and likely exceeds $600,000.
That payment has been rendered to the City (Attachment L).
The payment for removing the trees is required under the California
Civil Code to be paid to the HOA, the owners of the trees, not the City.
The cost of 4 mature pine trees is over $140,000. The Civil Code permits
treble damages, and case law provides for additional damages for
aesthetic value. Thus, the Funiciel/os owe the HOA at least $420,000
before they can proceed to obtain an Encroachment Permit.
9
Note the City Attorney or Staff misleading language. The amount
"rendered to the City" does not appear to have been deposited. Moreover,
the amount, $ 1708.00, is less than what the Contractor charged to
remove a single tree. [Staff Report].
Replacement requires four very expensive 40-year old mature pine
trees. The City now admits, on the record, that the trees were illegally cut
down, and that the City did not own the trees that were located on HOA
property. (Redline disclosure on Staff Report).
Condition 12, of the suspended and now expired Crown Castle permit,
requires restoration to: "original condition or better." This condition has
not been fulfilled. (Staff Report Exhibit L). Until it is, no permit should be
approved or granted.
Having now carefully reviewed all aspects of the application for the
encroachment permits, City Staff and the City Attorney are of the opinion that the
encroachment permits to relocate certain SCE utility poles combined within
undergrounding of high-voltage lines can be issued once there is resolution on location
of poles, extent of the undergrounding, and who will pay for any additional costs.
[T]he Encroachment Permits can be issued. Why is the plural used?
There is only one permit properly before the Council. And while an
Encroachment permit "can be issued," it is a discretionary permit and is
not REQUIRED to be issued.
The Staff and City Attorney fail to mention that issuing this permit will
start a war in RPV between burdened property owners who want to
relocate utility lines onto their neighbors' private property. They fail to
mention that once relocated, nothing prohibits the newly burdened
neighbors from reversing the permit process and returning the utilities to
the original location. Fair is fair. This could go on forever. Ping Pong!
Has the City Council considered this concern! problem? It is not
mentioned anywhere even though it was raised by HOA representatives at
one or more Council meetings and/or correspondence. Simply for this
reason, among others listed elsewhere, the Encroachment Permit(s)
should be denied.
Although it was the City's intent to use the time between the July 21 meeting and
now to develop a mutually agreeable design for the proposed project between the
various stakeholders, because this is a privately funded project with limited permit
authority by the City, the ultimate design and related costs is between the Funicellos,
SCE and telecommunication utilities (i.e. Crown Castle).
Recently, the HOA has indicated it may consider providing funds to further
underground the project beginning on the Funicellos property, but no commitments has
been or can be made by the HOA at this time unless verified costs are known and can
be considered by the HOA.
Staff will continue to facilitate a design and funding compromise and then issue
encroachment permits accordingly once reached.
10
The Staff Report fails to point out the HOA is only agreeable with the
utilities being placed fully underground on HOA property.
The decision to issue the Staff Permit is before the Council, not
automatic once the staff approves a design.
However, if there is an impasse to the full undergrounding due to costs and who
pays, and location of infrastructure, the Public Works Director will issue encroachment
permits based on the re-engineered design, as the Office of the City Attorney has
independently considered the various objections to the issuance of encroachment
permits and is of the considered legal opinion that there is no legal impediment to the
Public Works Director issuing the requested permits.
The issuance of a non-over-the-counter, discretionary permit, is not
based, and never has been based, upon "no legal impediment. " No legal
impediment is not a legal standard. It is meaningless and has no
application here. It is, instead, advocacy for the Funiciel/os.
Furlher, the City Attorney does not decide the issue of approval of a
discretionary permit. Yet Staff states "the City Attorney has independently
considered the various objections to the issuance ... "
Under the current RPV ordinance, the Public Works Director issues
encroachment permits. But appeals are always proper and here, the
HOA 's appeal is in front of the City Council.
Even if the decision remains in the Public Works Director's sole
discretion, she/he is required to balance the pros and cons, and instead,
the City Attorney has misstated that once the City Attorney has considered
the various objections, the Public Works Director has no impediment to
issuance. Yet what the City Attorney failed to state is that the Public
Works Director had no impediment to denying the permit.
Stated another way, the Public Works Director, if the decision ever
reverts to her/him, must review the merits and make an independent
decision based on the merits, not issuing a permit solely because there is
no impediment. In fact, she/he must state on the record the findings that
led to the decision.
Therefore, the above Staff Reporl statement is not an accurate
statement of the law. While there may be no legal impediment to issuing
an encroachment permit, there is no legal imperative or requirement to
issue the permit.
The permit is DISCRETIONARY and the decision maker, be it the
Council or the PWD, must make an independent review and decision.
Denying a permit to move the burden off one properly and onto a
neighbors' properly is a sufficient legal reason to deny the permit. The
Council, and if applicable the PWD, are urged to deny all encroachment
permit.
The Staff failed to mention that under the RPV Municipal Code, the
requested (and only requested permit) encroachment permit is limited to
work on City Streets; here, Crest Road. The encroachment permit does
not extend to work on the HOA 's adjacent property.
As the City Attorney has previously stated, there may be "differences
of opinion" regarding the law. Yet the City Attorney has steadfastly
11
refused to respond to the legal impediments to the Funiciellos relocation of
utilities onto HOA property. The Funiciellos are not adjacent property
owners, and are not a California utility company. Nor do the Funiciellos
have a right-of-way or easement over the HOA 's Crest Road adjacent
property, the location they desire to relocate utility poles and lines. The
HOA and its representatives have given him multiple opportunities to
respond.
It is important to note that the Funiciellos, and their attorney, have a/so
failed to provide any legal basis for their relocating the utilities onto HOA
property. This is the most telling of all failures. If there is a legal basis,
why have they refused to provide this basis to the City or the HOA? The
answer is obvious. There is no legal basis for the Funiciellos, a private
party, to relocate utility poles and lines onto HOA property.
The Staff Report overlooks the City's admission it has only a limited
City utility easement over HOA property. The City cannot assign that
easement to anyone, including a non-utility entity or person. Thus, the
City utility easement cannot be assigned or used by the Funiciellos.
SC Edison has admitted that it is merely a private contractor on this
project. SC Edison, through its representative Bo Ng, stated on numerous
occasions that it would prefer not to move the utility lines, and that there
was no net safety improvement by relocating the poles under the original
or revised plan. This clarifies that there is no "necessity" or "need."
Finally, the HOA does not, and will not, agree to allow the Funiciellos
to enter HOA property or relocate utility poles and lines onto HOA property
unless they are undergrounded and all poles are eliminated and then only
after an agreement is entered into.
CONCLUSION:
The HOA is opposed to the City Council voting to, or permitting staff to, approve a
discretionary encroachment permit to the Funiciellos over Crest Road. There is nothing before
the Council that permits the Funiciellos access to the HOA property or the legal right to enter
HOA property in order to relocate utility poles and lines.
Even if the Funiciellos could be assigned or permitted to use a City right to relocate the
utility poles and lines onto HOA property, the Funiciellos have not sought assignment of those
rights. More importantly here, that issue is not before the Council.
The City has no obligation to grant a discretionary permit to the Funiciellos and the
equities suggest the permit be denied. The City Council review of the Pros and Cons should
result in denying the encroachment permit.
According to the City Attorney, the City is immune from liability for the denial of the
permit.
12
Even if the encroachment permit is granted, it only allows encroachment onto RPV
streets, here, Crest Road. The encroachment permit, if granted, does not allow the Funiciellos, or
their contractors, to enter onto HOA property other than Crest Road.
The HOA will not allow the Funiciellos or their contractors to trespass HOA property,
park trucks or vehicles, unload sand, gravel or any other objects including bricks, cement, poles,
water, PVC, etc., install poles, wires, lines, or equipment, or relocate anything onto HOA
property.
Brad Malamud
13
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:28 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: FW: Crest Road Staff Report--City Attorney_s Supplement
Late correspondence
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
CiTY OF RANCHO PAlOS VERDES
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 r>rnail message contains information belonginq to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, whici'l rnay be pi'ivileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. Tr1e information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distributiOI\ or copying is stl'ictly prohibited. If
vou received this email in error, or ar<: not ;m intended recipk:nt, pk:asr" notify the sen<itr irnrn(:(liatdy, Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Kathy Campbell <kc111@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:06PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Brad Malamud <brad@malamuds.com>
Cc: Dale Spiegel <spiegda@gmail.com>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria
<Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>;
Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; wwynder@awattorneys.com
Subject: Re: FW: Crest Road Staff Report--City Attorney_s Supplement
Dear Ara,
I received a copy of Mr. Malamud's October 30 email, and spoke to a Council member who referenced having read it.
In any event, what staggering lack of curiosity, professional courtesy or basic competence would stop you or the City
Attorney from calling Mr. Malamud and requesting the clearly referenced item, referenced not once, but twice? Or, for
1 !f
that matter, contacting me or Dale? How could any attorney opine knowing that he/she has not reviewed all of the
documents?
This is the latest of a series of repeated "oversights" and "omissions" of timely submitted correspondence throughout
this matter and is unacceptable. It has all taken place to the HOA's detriment.
In fact, you and the Staff omitted my most recent letter from the late correspondence for tonight's meeting, and I had
to email you to request that you include it-which you did, only after omitting the email chain that contained your
mea culpa for creating a misleading impression to the Council.
I am so personally disappointed, and Council should be ALARMED at this ongoing practice. It needs to STOP,
immediately.
I will see you tonight, and in the meantime, please note the following
Mr. Wynder's office should have spelled Mr. Malamud's name properly. This is only one example of the firm's sloppy
work product.
Mr. Wynder should explain to the Council the difference between a letter on his letterhead or City Letterhead.
Mr. Wynder admits that its HOA private property.
Very Truly Yours,
Kathy Campbell
.On 11/4/2020 1:20PM, Ara Mihranian wrote:
Mr. Malamud,
Attached is the City Attorney's response to your two letters received on November 1
and 3.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
CITVor=
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
2
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e .. rnail contains infonnaUon to the City of Rancho Pdlos Verdes, which rnay be confidenti211 and/or
nn·,h, .. d,."'·l from The information is only for use of U1e individual or entity named. dissemination,
or copyinq is strictly prohibited. lf you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender
immecliiltdy. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation ..
3
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, November 4, 2020 8:44AM
CityCierk; Teresa Takaoka
Subject: FW: Response to Nov. 4 Staff Report 3867 Crest Road Relocation Project
Please add this in today's late correspondence packet.
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
a ram@ rpvca .gov
www.rpvca.gov
Ill Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy Campbell <kc111@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 7:29AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Response to Nov. 4 Staff Report 3867 Crest Road Relocation Project
Good Morning Ara-
Perhaps I missed it, but it appears that neither this email chain, nor my attached letter, made it into late
correspondence.
Please advise,
Kathy
>On Nov 3, 2020, at 12:59 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
>
> Honorable Mayor and City Council members,
>
>As a follow-up to my email response to Kathy Campbell, the meeting that was held on October 26 was coordinated by
me not Mr. Funicello.
1
>
>Ara
>
>
> Ara Michael Mihranian
> City Manager
> ____________________________ ___
>
>
> 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
> Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
> 310-544-5202 (telephone)
> 310-544-5293 (fax)
> aram@rpvca.gov
> www.rpvca.gov
>
>
> l1l Do you really need to print this e-mail?
>
>This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
> From: Ara Mihranian
>Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 9:47 PM
>To: 'Kathy Campbell' <kc111@cox.net>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria
<Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; David
Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>
>Subject: RE: Response to Nov. 4 Staff Report 3867 Crest Road Relocation Project
>
>Kathy,
>
>Your email will be part of the late correspondence packet.
> For clarification, there was a meeting on Monday, October 26 at llam that Mr. Funicello and Mr. Spiegel attended in-
person at Hesse Park.
>
> Ara
>
>-----Original Message-----
> From: Kathy Campbell [mailto:kc111@cox.net]
>Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 2:22 PM
>To: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro
<barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>
> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
>Subject: Response to Nov. 4 Staff Report 3867 Crest Road Relocation Project
>
> Dear John, Eric, Dave, Barbara and Ken:
>
>Please see my attached letter regarding the 3867 Crest Road Relocation Project.
2
>
> I also would like to inform you that there has been no outreach by Mr.
> Funiciello to the HOA, following the last Council meeting on October 20.
>
>Thank you for your kind consideration.
>
> Kathy Campbell
>
3
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, November 4, 2020 2:57 PM
Jocelyn Foust; CityCierk
Subject: RE: City council meeting -11/04/2020
Hello Ms. Foust-
We will forward these videos on to the City Council along with your previous video that you submitted earlier today.
As you know we are conducting hybrid meetings and use our screen at Hesse as our Zoom and Powerpoint presentation
platforms.
Thank you for understanding.
Teri Takaoka
Deputy City Clerk
From: Jocelyn Foust <jocelynpfoust@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 2:50PM
To: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: City council meeting-11/04/2020
Hello again,
I am sorry to send this so late, but I do have two more videos I would like to provide for tonight.
Thank you,
On Wednesday, November 4, 2020, Jocelyn Foust <jocelynpfoust@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I am sending this email on behalf of my mom, Miriam Naomi Foust who will be speaking at the meeting tonight. This is
in regards to the issue of relocating the telephone poles on crest road.
Please let me know if you received the video.
Thank you very much,
Jocelyn Foust
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late Correspondence for Item 5.
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
Megan Barnes
Wednesday, November 4, 2020 4:06 PM
CityCierk
FW: Nov. 3rd City Council Meeting -Item #5
From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 4:03 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Nov. 3rd City Council Meeting-Item #5
I would like to make some specific comments on Agenda Item #5 and also some comments in general.
On Item #5, discussing the citizens satisfaction survey and specifically the Civic Center, is like taking your
child to a "Toys R Us" store. If you ask them what toys they want, they will have a long list of toys that they
want. They will have no concept of what the cost may be nor if their parents are able to financially pay for
them. This has been exactly how our previous City Manager (CM) presented the proposed Civic Center to the
City Council (CC), the Civic Center Advisory Committee (CCAC) and the residents. The whole Civic Center
concept, as presented to the CC, Advisory Comm. and the residents is nothing but a waste of everyone's time.
As you all know costs were never discussed up front in the planning stages and when they were discussed,
they were never realistic or accurate. This is the way our previous CM operated.
Just take the case of the new Ladera Linda Park. The City is on the verge of building a new Park, on which
they have spent over $!million and to this day there is no accurate construction cost presented anywhere.
Now getting back to the proposed Civic Center, based on how our previous CM operated, there were
rumored cost figures that varied wildly from $40 million to $140 million. This is not right. The first thing we
should do is make a list of what our City really needs. Do we need a restaurant on site or do we want a
restaurant on site? Do we need a completely new main City building complex or can the existing complex be
utilized along with adding some new construction? Do we need a new 250 seat CC chamber or do we want a
new 250 seat CC chamber? Do we need a new Sheriff and Fire Station or is it that we want a new Sheriff
and Fire Station? The feeling I got is that the previous CM did not care about how much money was spent for
his grand vision plans. His other standard answer was to use P3 financing, which does not require approval by
the residents. I can tell you, for a fact, that our previous CM would not present a (CCAC) report to the CC
unless the (CCAC) included a Sheriff and Fire Stations in that report. Also one keeps track of how much Staff
time is spent on all of these projects, but it is excessive and not included in the various projected estimates.
We have wasted a lot of people's time on this project.
1 5
So before sending out any citizen satisfaction surveys, on the Civic Center for example, you should provide
specific information on a list of needs and wants along with reasonably accurate cost information.
2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
NOVEMBER 3, 2020
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through
Tuesday afternoon for the Wednesday, October 4, 2020 City Council meeting:
Item No.
c
D
3
4
Description of Material
Email exchanges between Senior Administrative Analyst Lozano and
Sunshine; Email from Kirk Hyde
Answers to questions posed by Mayor Cruikshank
Email exchange between City Manager Mihranian and Kathy Campbell
Emails from: Dale Spiegel; Brad Malamud; Alex Pop; Kathy Campbell
ReKmitted,
Emily Colborn
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\202011 04 additions revisions to agenda thru Tuesday.docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hello Katie,
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Monday, November 2, 2020 2:30 PM
Katie Lozano
CC; CityCierk; Ron Dragoo
Re: November 4, 2020, CC, Consent Calendar Item C, PVPLC Report
2007 blockages -0358.pdf
You have either missed or dodged my point. I understand what the Council has taken on as far as
producing the Preserve Comprehensive Report and Annual Report. Apparently, there is no
"downside" to the fact that PVPLC has presented it even later than usual. Your Agenda Report is
Recommending that Council "receive and file" a document which contains a proposed Work Plan for
2021 which does not take into consideration the goals of the California Coastal Trail nor the yet to be
completed designs for repairing Altamira Canyon. It also should, but does not include Public Works,
the Fire Department and the PVPLC's agreement on what TYPE of trail each of these Category Ill
trail's "narratives" should state in the draft TNP Update. No fair planting where other activities may
need to take place.
The Quarterly Forums are a Council mandated public report on the PVPLC's Preserve Management
activities not a Citizen Advisory discussion on Council initiated projects. Thank you for telling me
where their agendas and minutes are archived.
I should not have to explain to you that it is a progression of City Councils which have been directing
Staff to coordinate with all the various parties involved to "design/engineer" the preservation and
enhancement of the Peninsula's trails network with specific emphasis on the California Coastal Trail
and the Palos Verdes Loop Trail. The Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) of 1990 was drafted by a Citizen
Committee as an insert because Staff couldn't figure out how to do that, based on the general
directions in the General Plan, the Coastal Specific Plan and the Trails Network Plan (TNP). It was
working just fine until the State came up with the concept of an NCCP.
I agree with Councilman Dyda's observation that the City has created an "amusement park" without
engineering the infrastructure to support it. The February 23, 2008 City Council didn't use the same
term but they came to the same conclusion. Their approval, with many modifications of the PUMP
Committee's draft Preserve Trails Plan and the reopening of the trails was directed to be "temporary"
pending a proposal with thorough engineering. We are still waiting.
1 C.
In 2012 "conflicts" were being reported so Council demanded some action and substantially approved
the 2005 Task Force's suggestions to make the TNP/CTP less "avoidable". Given the delay in the
TNP update, that clearly has not worked.
Since the November 4, 2020 Consent Calendar Item C Recommendation is limited to "receive and
file", I am pointing out the chronic avoidance that it represents. Staff needs to produce a "holistic"
plan as a proposed amendment to the Trails Network because the change of the status of the
Reserve properties from privately held to City owned is not covered in the TNP "update" process.
Specific to the Abalone Cove Reserve (the 2021 Work Plan), Staff should have noticed (particularly
after receiving my response to the 2019 Work Plan), that this old business needs to be addressed.
It is rather thoughtless of Staff to direct the public to use the California Coastal Trail (CCT) in lieu of
the Burma Road Trail while neither have been engineered to accommodate a projection of the
volume of what sort of users. It is wasteful to expect the City Council to design these things after a
limited amount of public input (like for the parking problem near Del Cerro Park). It is even worse to
but such a poorly designed plan on the Consent Calendar without even mentioning that it is there.
FYI. Attached is the CCT "three strings" concept with the blockages as of 2007. There is not yet any
such thing as an "unauthorized" trail nor any established criteria that would suggest a need to
prevent/remedy trail widening. As a substantial part of the Circulation Element in the RPV General
Plan, the Trails Network Plan needs to be implemented while we are all waiting for the draft
consolidation and revised formatting. New concepts/changes such as the Preserve's Public Use
Master Plan (PUMP) needs to be introduced into the "big plan" as proposed amendments to the
appropriate City-wide documents only as additions which apply only within the Preserve properties.
When the whole "amusement park" has been designed and vetted at Public Hearings, then we can
start sorting out what the NCCP/HCP really means in relation to our City's public and private
infrastructure. After that, you specialists may pick and choose your next habitat restoration areas.
Please be prepared to explain to Council and the public what your recommended Council Action
really means in the way of potential conflicts with completing the California Coastal Trail. ... S 310-
377-8761
In a message dated 11/2/2020 5:51:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, Katiel@rpvca.gov writes:
Hello Sunshine,
2
Thank you for your email. It will be included as late correspondence. The Preserve
Comprehensive Report and Annual Report are very specific reports required by the City's
NCCP/HCP. Their required content is detailed in Chapter 9 of the NCCP/HCP, and includes
covered species surveys, habitat tracking, a habitat restoration plan, management
recommendations, night hike activities, and habitat impact/take. City staff and the Wildlife
Agencies have reviewed the reports and found that they meet these reporting requirements.
Per the NCCP/HCP, PVPLC coordinates with City staff and the Wildlife Agencies
to chose habitat restoration areas based on specific factors, including overall contribution to
Preserve habitat restoration value and site suitability. The City and PVPLC have been
providing reports on the restoration areas at Abalone Cove Reserve during quarterly Public
Forums and through Preserve listserv messages. Staff appreciates your recommendation
that more specific information be provided on efforts to close unauthorized trails and
prevent/remedy trail widening, and we will work with PVPLC and the Wildlife Agencies to
provide more detail on these topics in future reports.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
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: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2020 6:09 PM
To: CC; CityCierk
Cc: Katie Lozano
Subject: November 4, 2020, CC, Consent Calendar Item C, PVPLC Report
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council,
I have spent the weekend watching the videos of a lot of old Council Meetings and have one
thing to say ... If you approve Staffs Recommendation to receive and file this report and ask
3
for a hard copy, you will get one thing ... a beautiful coffee table book just like a hard copy of
the RPV General Plan.
What the Council will continue to not get is any sort of proposal which balances the region's
needs/wants for erosion control, emergency preparedness, visitor amenities, the California
Coastal Trail, the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network and neighbor's quality of life with the
PVPLC's goal of defending the future of every native plant which might thrive here on The Hill.
Do be aware that the "beautiful big book" contains the assumed approval of the
PVPLC's Work Plan for 2021 and that the Agenda Report for a Consent Calendar Item
includes Additional Management Recommendations for non-specific "close
unauthorized trails" and "repair widening trails". Is that enough for you to vote No
pending a "transparent" or "holistic" report? Let the "wildlife Agencies" wait.
You current Council Members have directed Staff to work with the PVPLC on the "use
projections" in relation to the parking situation . On February 23, 2008, the Council asked Staff
to coordinate with the PVPLC to produce a design concept which would address the long -term
engineering required to maintain a trails network which connects other cities, our parks etc.
and still protect an increasing amount of quality native habitat. The 2008 Council reviewed
the PUMP Committee's trail recommendations ... one Reserve at a time , and found them to
be lacking. What they approved was clearly to be temporary pending such a "holistic" plan
As much as they favored the "habitat" part of creating a Nature Preserve, the 2008 City
Council clearly intended to establish a beautiful balance between "pure habitat" and an
"amusement park". Compare the attached four maps of the Abalone Cove Reserve. The
PVPLC's "proposed" Work Plan for 2021 gives a little "lip service" to the big objective. The
continuity of the separate, off road corridors for pedestrians, equestrians and bicyclists,
concept for the California Coastal Trail is totally ignored (even though perfectly
feasible). Engineering for both the bluff top trail crossing and erosion control improvements in
Altamira Canyon will become moot if native plants are planted taking best as in, "blank page"
engineered solutions off the table.
That happened in 2017 at Upper Point Vicente Park. Elias Sassoon "couldn't stop it". 90
percent of this decision-making process is in the TNP Update, or not. BTW, the first TNP
Update Workshop is not on any tentative calendar for November or December. Please don't
let Staff keep postponing public reviews while they do only what they deem appropriate in
favor of reduced public access all over The Hill.
SUNSHINE
4
RPV
PS: I'll have to send the maps one at a time. The second one is page 190 in the
Report. "The City" already has all of them, but not at their fingertips or yours. I would
appreciate individual preferences, yes or no sometime Monday or Tuesday.
5
....i -~
1-
...J
~ en
<(
0
0
<( -z
0::
0
LL -...J
<C
0
r-~v""'
· .. "lY).O)( . ...,.,
. ...-/J~
Cilp.J J/•,.
c;o;vc{
0 rnm(\l•
\N\0.1
J,VM· JW \1
{ l !•
,\
2 \
\· \
.>
.. '(,
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Katie,
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Tuesday, October 27, 2020 2:48 PM
Katie Lozano
CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Ken Rukavina; info@coastwalk.org
November 4 Council Meeting on PVPLC's Report and the Trails Network Plan Update ..
Re: 2016-2018 Preserve Comprehensive Report
Apparently you are stuck with these questions, too. Do notice that the Agenda Item description does
not mention that Staff is asking for approval of next year's Work Plan.
The one big RPV question which the public will not get to weigh in on at the Ballot Box, this year is ...
Which takes precedence? The General Plan or the Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat
Conservation Plan?
Who decides what people are permitted to do on City owned property? Who decides the quality of
the maintenance of our City owned infrastructure? Who decides how we fit in with our neighboring
communities?
What is right and what is wrong with this picture?
1 C.
This photo was submitted to RPV's Staff as a part of the California Coastal Commission's list of
concerns with the "restatement" of the Trump National Development Public Amenities and Trails
Plan.
Is this the designated pedestrian corridor of the California Coastal Trail? Given that it is closed
during Trump's current construction phase, where is it documented that it is to be restored/enhanced
to which CRITERIA TYPE? And, who is to pay for the work?
Come November 4, will the "Team" representing the various City Department's responsibilities in the
TNP Update process be providing the Council with an analysis of how the PVPLC's activities and
plans have been coordinated with the 2012 updated goals and policies of the Trails Network Plan?
This is the first chance for the Council and the public to review the "consequences" of what the City's
Public Works Department, the Community Development Department and the Rec .& Parks
Department have agreed upon in relation to this public/private arrangement in the California Coastal
Zone .... S 310 -377 -8761
2
PS: In the 1993 version of the Conceptual Trails Plan, the photo may be of 011, the point-to-point
concept for the Halfway Point section of the Coastal Bluff Trail System i.e. the California Coastal Trail.
In a message dated 10/26/2020 4:51:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, KatieL@rpvca.gov writes:
Hello Sunshine,
Yes, the report contains the habitat restoration plan at Abalone Cove. Due to City, PVPLC, and Wildlife Agency
focus on the NCCP/HCP, this report was submitted late, so normally the habitat restoration plan goes to the
City Council and public much earlier. The habitat restoration plan is Section 3 on pg. 156 of the pdf below.
http://www.rpvca .gov/DocumentCenter/View/16227/Comprehensive-Mgmt-Report -2016 -2018
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
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: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2020 3:43 PM
To: listserv@civicplus.com; Katie Lozano
Subject: Question. Re: 2016-2018 Preserve Comprehensive Report
Hello Katie,
Does this Report contain PVPLC's proposed Work Plan for next year like some have in the
past? Or, is the Plan for 2021 going to get it's own Agenda Item public review? Or, has it
already received Council Approval? Either way, can you give me a short-cut to view just the
Plan? ... S 310-377-8761
In a message dated 10/14/2020 11:19 :56 AM Pacific Standard Time, lis t serv@civicplus.com writes :
3
View this in your browser
On November 4, 2020, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will consider the following
agenda item:
Consideration and possible action to receive and file the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy's 2016-2018 Comprehensive Report and the
2018 Annual Report on its management activities for the Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve.
Please click here to view the 2016-2018 Comprehensive Report. It is a large
PDF.
Please click here for instructions on how to participate in the City Council Meeting.
Please contact Senior Administrative Analyst Katie Lozano for additional
information at trails@rpvca.gov or 310-544-5267.
* * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of a "Notify Me" Listserv
category you are signed up for. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message, it is
an unmonitored email address. You can make changes to your subscription by
visiting http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx.
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
4
From:
Sent:
To:
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com >
Wednesday, October 28, 2020 4 :15 PM
CC ; CityCierk; Katie Lozano
Subject: Need pre-advice. November 4, 2020 CC Agenda Item C Abalone Cove Work Plan . Fwd :
Question. Re: 2016-20 18 Preserve Comprehensive Report
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council,
Since it is not mentioned in th e Titl e of thi s Consent Calendar Item, I am not s ure wheth e r or not you
will be able to di scu ss th e lack of "holi stic" analys is involved with this "receive and fil e" Staff
Recommendation . Your re quest for s uch is not new as indicated by thi s previou s public comm e nt.
Mr. Downhill has passed away with City Honors . Hi s recommend ation about unresolved is s ues has
gon e "untran s pa re nt".
Sen,t: Tuesday, Decembe r 18, 2012 10:53 AM
s .ubject: Abafone Cove ShoreNne Park
I highly recommend the Consent Agenda i'tem to award a contract re lated
to ~~Improvements" at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park be dissaproved and the
subject be returned to staff for further a-ctions needed to reconsider any
such proposed changes in the ·~ransparent " light of how this project came
about and the totality of events and actions that effect our coastline that
have occured and are still taking place today . ie. The origin and current
validity of the "Coastal Vision P lan''. the dissolution of the RDA, unresolved
probf,ems of Atbmira Canyon and ACLAD re1lated factors . Signed Jack
Downhill' ,Pen•nsula resident since 1960,owner of property in what is now
RPV since 1968 and resident of the Abalone Cove area comencing in
1981.
Should I submit my "late correspondence" about how the PVP Land Conservancy's proposed
Work Plan for 2021 does not consider the California Coastal Trail "concept" as a Non-Agenda
Item or as a request to speak on the Consent Calendar Item?
S UN S HIN E 310 -377-8761
1 C .
From: Katiel@rpvca.gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Sent: 10/26/2020 4:51:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: Re : Question. Re: 2016-2018 Preserve Comprehensive Report
Hello Sunshine,
Yes, the report contains the habitat restoration plan at Abalone Cove . Due to City, PVPLC, and Wildlife Agency
focus on the NCCP/HCP, this report was submitted late, so normally the habitat restoration plan goes to the
City Council and public much earlier. The habitat restoration plan is Section 3 on pg . 156 of the pdf below.
http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16227/Comprehensive-Mgmt-Report-2016 -2018
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310 -544 -5267
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: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2020 3:43 PM
To: listserv@civicplus.com; Katie Lozano
Subject: Question. Re: 2016-2018 Preserve Comprehensive Report
Hello Katie,
Does this Report contain PVPLC's proposed Work Plan for next year like some have in the
past? Or, is the Plan for 2021 going to get it's own Agenda Item public review? Or, has it
already received Council Approval? Either way, can you give me a short-cut to view just the
Plan? ... S 310-377-8761
In a message dated 10/14/2020 11:19 :56 AM Pacific Standard Time, listserv@civicplus .c om writes :
2
View this in your browser
On November 4, 2020, the Rancho Pa los Verdes City Counc il will cons id er the fo llowin g
agenda it e m:
Consideration and possible action to receive and file the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy's 2016-2018 Comprehensive Report and the
2018 Annual Report on its management activities for the Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve.
P lease c li ck here to view the 2016-2018 Comprehensive Report. It is a large
PDF.
P lease cl ick here for instructions on how to participate in the City Council Meeting.
Please contact Senior Administrative Analyst Katie Lozano for additional
information at trails@rpvca.gov or 310-544-5267.
*************************************************
This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Ve rde s as part of a "Notify Me" Listserv
category you are s igned up for . Please do not press "reply" when res ponding to this me ssage , it is
an unmonitored email address . You can make change s to your subsc ription by
vi s iting http://www .rpvca .gov/list.aspx .
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
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Karina Banales
Monday, November 2, 2020 12:36 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Parking on School Property and PVP Transit Authority to accommodate hikers
-----Original Message-----
From: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 12:33 PM
To: Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Karina Banales <kbanales@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Parking on School Property and PVP Transit Authority to accommodate hikers
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Kirk Hyde <kirkhyde@me.com>
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 12:53 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Parking on School Property and PVP Transit Authority to accommodate hikers
Mayor Cruikshank and City Council members,
We have lived in the Del Cerro Community for over thirty years. Our first home was on Amber Sky Drive. Our home was
on the Burma Trail. Now we live on Coveview drive directly behind the PVP Transit Authority service yard. Living on the
Burma trail was troublesome but when we bought our home at 7 Amber Sky drive in the late 1980's, there were very
few hikers as compared to the last 10 years. Our home became unlivable. Besides the constant noise we also had to pick
up empty beer bottles and other objects thrown in our back yard. We enjoy living in Del Cerro and served on the
homeowners association. We were fortunate to be able to stay in the community when we purchased our home on
Coveview drive.
It is my understanding that the City is planing to open up parking for the masses behind our home and our fellow
neighbors. Does this equate to more noise and more trash?
It absolutely does. I am totally against this proposal. The idea of having massive parking close to our home and face the
onslaught of hundreds of hikers invading our neighborhood is misguided at best.
We don't want to be forced out of this home, too.
1 c
Hopefully the City Council will not approve this plan.
Thank you,
Kirk Hyde
15 Coveview Drive
2
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, November 3, 2020 12:57 PM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: Consent Calendar Item D
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 12:57 PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Consent Calendar Item D
Can you add this as late correspondence.
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
CrTVOF RANCHO PAlOS VERDES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
Th1s c--rnilil conta;ns information to the City of Rancho Pillos Verdes, which rnay be privileqed, confideotial and/or protected from
<Jsclosure. Tt1e is Intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. Tf
you received this ern ail in erTor, or ar·e not im intended recipient, please notity the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistanc(! and cooperation.
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 6:42 PM
To: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Consent Calendar Item D
John,
1
Below are responses to your question.
Ron wanted me to clarify that this is not a change order to an existing contract, but a new contract to
perform new work for the expanded study area.
Let me know if you have any follow-up questions.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
err\/ OF I~Cl·IO PALOS \lEI~DES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e+na!l contains information bclonqing to the of RmKho Palos Verdes, which rnay be privileucd, confidential and/or protected from
rl5closur!\ Tiv• is :ntendecl only for use of the or entity named. Unauti1ori1.ed clissemnation, distnbution, or copyin9 is strictly prohibitecL If
you rece!Vf•d this email in enor, or ,,:-e not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, Thank you for your assistance and cooperation,
From: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 11:16 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Consent Calendar Item D
Ara,
Since this is a big ticket change order to Harris & Associates, I have the following questions that I hope you
can get answers to us before Wednesday.
Q. Why wasn't this accounted for in the first place?
Originally, the plan was to address erosion as it passes through the Abalone Cove neighborhoods and
crosses a landslide junction point in the canyon. This was believed to be the principal area of concern
by Geologists (Eilig & Douglas) and the City Council. Staff included information learned during public
meetings in the scope of the project to gain insight into the methods that area residents believed
would be helpful regarding possible proposed alternatives. Some residents recommended studying
the area north of the community extending to Crenshaw. During a briefing to the City Council, it was
decided that the original limits of the Study should be extended to the north and south to the ocean.
2
Based on PSR it looks like it was already in that report.
The hydrology considered was to allow design alternatives to be developed within the study area,
however erosion in the canyon to the north and south ofthe neighborhood was not studied and
alternative solutions were not considered for these two areas.
Q. How much did it cost to get us to the 90% completion level?
The mid-section of Altamira Canyon, as it passes through the Abalone Cove neighborhood, was
studied at a cost of $225,623. The contract amount was $303,944.
Q. Is Task II B really worth $88K to our City? Who at the City vetted this?
The preliminary design includes up to 4 models of proposed conditions and evaluate proposed
alternatives for any needed channel improvements. The alternatives, hydrology and hydraulics
analyses proposed will be developed by a sub consultant to Harris. A field investigation report will be
put together and include a photo log that will be used later for concept development and evaluations,
Computer models will be setup and run for .one-dimensional channel section analysis, for the entire
Altamira drainage system. A HEC-RAS hydraulic model will be developed to evaluate the natural
stream hydraulics of the existing drainage system, specifically in the West Fork drainage area, the
model will evaluate the flow depths, velocities, and water surface profiles of runoff in the stream. This
information will be used to determine stream bed mobility and aid in determining where erosion could
be significant and determine if stabilization is needed. This analysis along with the Hydraulic model
analysis are needed to evaluate if a debris basin is needed to comply with water quality
requirements. All of this is needed to fully understand impacts of the design and effectiveness of the
proposed alternatives (solutions) and justify the proposed alternatives to resource agencies and
support design choices.
Q. They are proposing lining the canyons. Will they be addressing the same sensitivities we covered with the
Portuguese Bend?
If canyon lining is determined to be a viable solution, where canyon treatments are determined to be
beneficial, they will address the same sensitivities as in Portuguese Bend.
John Cruikshank
Sent from my iPad
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
For late correspondence ...
James O'Neill
Wednesday, October 28, 2020 3:20 PM
CityCierk
FW: Item G on the Consent Calendar 10/20/20 Council Meeting
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 12:53 PM
To: Kathy Campbell <kc111@cox.net>
Subject: RE: Item G on the Consent Calendar 10/20/20 Council Meeting
The staff report touches on this, but in a nutshell, late last year, the Mayor, myself, and staff met with
a neighborhood off Hawthorne Blvd. interested in forming an undergrounding district. As you know,
the Mayor has been an advocate for expanding the Rule 20A tariff to include high fire hazard areas.
During that meeting, we realized that the guidelines were out of date and needed to be updated.
Public Works was assigned with this task. I, as City Manager, wanted the guidelines to be updated
before the end of the year, so that the City can start promoting forming assessment districts with the
community in 2021 starting with CHOA's meeting in January/February (I am usually a guest speaker
at that meeting). This is why we was added to the October 20 agenda. It was ready to be presented
to the City Council, albeit it took several months to get there.
I hope this puts things in perspective.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
CITY OF ~~~a 10 F1\Los VEr~DES
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?
1 3.
Thb c·ma!l rncssaqc contains information belon9i11\J to the City of Rancho Piilos Verdes, which may be rwivilc9cd, confidential and/or protected from
(hdosure. Tr1e information is intcmkd only for use of the im.lividual or entity muncd. Unaut11orizcc! db~;ernination, distribution, or copyinq is strictly prohibited. lf
you received this ernilil in error, or arc not <m intt!nded recipient, please notify the sender irnmedidtely. Thank you for your assistance iHld cooperation.
From: Kathy Campbell <kc111@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 12:38 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Item G on the Consent Calendar 10/20/20 Council Meeting
Hi Ara-
I appreciate your prompt response/clarification and I will resend as you suggest.
Can you please answer my question no. 7 below? I am trying to understand process.
Thanks, Kathy
On Oct 28, 2020, at 12:31 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
I think you should and resend it to me and CC@rpvca.gov.
May I suggest reviewing the staff report.
Many of your questions have been addressed in the staff report.
Additionally, it is a regular business item and no longer on the consent calendar.
Let me know if you have questions.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
<image002.jpg>
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 rncssaqe contains information belonqinrJ to the of Rancho Palos Verdes, which rnay be privileqed, confidential andjor
nm,.,,,n,-, frcrn disclosure, The information is intended usc of the individual or entity nmnecL Unauthorized disscrnination,
is strictly prohibited. lf you this email in ermr, Ot' are not an intended recipient please notifY the sender
irnmcdiat:ely. you for your assistance and cooper<~tion.
2
From: Kathy Campbell <kc111@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 10:07 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Item G on the Consent Calendar 10/20/20 Council Meeting
No-sorry, I should have retitled to reflect the Nov 4 Agenda-
Should I re-send?
On Oct 28, 2020, at 9:33AM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Good morning Kathy,
Was this email sent to me in advertently?
This is a regular business item on the November 4 agenda.
https ://rpv. gran icus. com/GeneratedAgenda Viewer. php ?view id=5&event
d=1676
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
<image002.jpg>
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 c<Ywil rnessaqc cor1tc1ins information to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which mdy be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from clisclosurc. ;nforrnatlon is intended only for use of the individual or entity
narncd. Unauthorized disscminat:ior~r distribution, or copying is strictly lf you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Kathy Campbell <kc111@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 8:52AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Item G on the Consent Calendar 10/20/20 Council Meeting
Dear Ara and City Council Members:
1. I strongly object to the inclusion of this item on the Consent Calendar for
approval by minute order.
3
2. These 46 pages o{red-lined guidelines were provided with less than 24 hours
notice to you, and will affect the property rights of citizens throughout Rancho
Palos Verdes. The citizens deserve the opportunity to review and comment on
these guidelines, and I believe it is disrespectful to present this information to you
for decision on such short notice.
3. The CPUC is currently revising its own guidelines, it seems prudent to wait
until they are done, in order to avoid the City expenditure of time and resources to
re-do/revise these guidelines.
4. No mention is made as to whether these guidelines are to be prospectively, or
retroactively applied, and for their impact on past or pending matters.
5. There is a SUBSTANTIAL change in the approval process, from 66 2/3 to
50 percent. That change alone has the potential to create ongoing conflicts
between neighbors. There is no discussion of how the 50 percent threshold is
reached, when the property is owned by an HOA.
6. We have current matter before the Council for the last 2 years that would
potentially be affected by these guidelines. No one from the City has ever
disclosed the existence of or discussed the revision of these guidelines with
us. There appears to be a need for better co-ordination and communication
between City departments, staff and Councilmembers.
7. Please advise who initiated this matter [the revisions themselves] and who
initiated their placement on the Consent Calendar.
Finally, it is inappropriate to put these guidelines on the Consent Calendar for
approval by minute order.
Very Truly Yours,
Kathy Campbell
4
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Karina Banales
Monday, November 2, 2020 11:21 AM
CityCierk
FW: 3867 Crest Project -Covered Conductor Is Not "Safe"
Feb. 27th Workshop SCE Covered Conductor Presentation -CONCLUSION.pdf; Feb.
27th Workshop SCE Covered Conductor Presentation.pdf
From: Dale Spiegel <spiegda@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 11:20 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina
<krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Dale A Spiegel Jr <spiegda@gmail.com>
Subject: 3867 Crest Project-Covered Conductor Is Not "Safe"
A critical HOA issue relating to the latest "only-one-SCE-pole-South-of-Crest" plan is still safety. Even though
we have demonstrated that intrusions on the South side of Crest are not permissible on legal grounds, we need
the City to recognize that our safety concerns also are real and must be considered. We don't believe that
recognition is taking place.
In the various meetings, many non-experts have opined that covered conductor is "safe".
SCE itself states that covering the conductor results in only a partial ( 60%) reduction in wildfire risk when
compared to complete undergrounding, which results in 100% reduction. Their study is attached. Due to the
study's length, I also attach separately their final page conclusion. They focus on covered conductor as being
cheaper ("cost effective"), not better. An important role of government is to enforce policy that goes beyond
mere dollars and cents. Wildfire is the City's identified #1 safety concern. Each decision to ignore safety cuts
against that policy.
As we have said in the past, a partial reduction in risk is like removing SOME of the bullets from a gun before
handing it to a child. YOU STILL WOULDN'T HAND THE GUN OVER!
Mr Funiciello's one-SCE-pole proposal is still introducing a new ignition point in a new location endangering
new homeowners, all for the sole cosmetic benefit of a single homeowner.
SCE stated that from a public service point of view they would not make this change-it disrupts the original
vertical infrastructure that was laid out based on engineering efficiency many years ago. Any such disruption
should involve zero risk, not a transfer of risk to a new group ofhomeowners.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns.
Dale Spiegel
ce111.310.779.4710
1
Q_
0 _c
l/)
...:::L.
!:........
0
5
!:........
0
+--' u
:::J u c
0 u
~
"'0
u m
m
(J)
Q) 1""""1
...c
!:........ 0
<l
Q) N
(f) :,..., > ...
<U
,........
L
0 N
s u ~
..__
0
!a.... u co -> ::J
0)
I-
~ !a....
().)
..0
c
Q_
w
<lJ u L.L.
Overview & Objectives
• History & Evolution of Covered Conductor Design
• Testing and Analysis
• Ignition & Electrocution Risk
• Service Life & Durability
• Use by other Utilities
• Typical Construction Configurations
• Risk Analysis & Alternatives Comparison
E1ergy fo r W hat 's Ahead '.,. I 2
A Brief History
• Covered Conductor has been used by utilities since the 1970s in Europe
and the U.S.
• Key driver: reliability improvement in dense vegetation areas, such as forests in
Scandinavia, the U.K., New England, etc.
• Other drivers expand the use of covered conductors:
• Tokyo, Japan: public safety in dense population
• Southeast Asia (Thailand, Malaysia): animal protection (snakes, monkeys, rodents), and
dense vegetation, also public safety in downtown Bangkok
• Reduction of "bushfires" has become a key driver for replacing bare with
covered conductor in Australia
• Over the years, significant development in the covered conductor design
led to improved performance and extended life
E1ergy fo r W hat 's Ahead ''' I 3
Nomenclature of Covered Conductor
• Covered conductor: insulating materials, distinguished from bare conductor
• Covered conductor in the U.S.:
• Covered conductor in lieu of "insulated conductor", which is reserved for grounded overhead cable
• Tree wire: widely used in the U.S. in 1970's, typically one -layer covered, on cross-arm construction
• Spacer cable: 2 or 3 layers of covering, support by messenger and trapezoidal insulated brackets
• Aerial bundled cable (ABC): underground cable on poles with benefits of being grounded
• Covered conductor in the other parts in the world:
• covered conductor, insulated conductor, coated conductor interchangeably
• Scandinavia countries: SAX, PAS/BLX, BLX -T, typically installed in forests
• Australia, Far East countries: CC/CCT; CCT with thicker insulation
• Covered Conductor at SCE:
• Introduced standards in Ql, 2018
• SCE has previous experience in aerial cable, and "tree wires"
• Current SCE specification of covered conductor is more robust than CCT (e.g. better UV protection)
E'lergy fo r 'N hafs Ahead ''' I 4
Evolution of Covered Conductor
Single Layer
/
""-----1 • Protection on
incidental contacts
• Less protection on
long term contact
with objects
• More susceptible to
long term UV
degradation (30+
years)
~A ~
Two Layer
• Thicker overall
insulation
• Improvement on
insulation
• Tougher outer layer
for abrasion
protection
• Improvement on
uv
Three Layer
(Current Standard)
• Capable of
withstand long-
term contact (semi-
conductive shield)
• Higher conductor
rating (cross-
linking)
• Abrasion
improvement
• Improved UV and
tracking resistant
(Titanium dioxide)
-" I 5
SCE Covered Conductor Design Conductor Shoeld
• Three Layer Covered Conductor
• Conductor
• Aluminum Conductor Steel-Reinforced (ACSR)
• Hard Drawn Copper (H DCU)
• Conductor Shield
• Semiconducting Thermoset Polymer
ACSR Condudor
• Reduces stress, transforms strands into a single uniform cylinder
• Extend service life of the covered conductor in case of contacts
• Inner Insulation Layer Flux lines without a conductor shield
• Crosslinked Low Density Polyethylene: more flexible
• High impulse strength: protect from phase-to-phase and phase-to-ground contact
• Crosslinking: retain its strength and shape even when heated
• Outer Layer
<-·-~
,! .""'
R:.=uF:I!X
Llr.:::;
Flux lines with a conductor shield
• Crosslinked High Density Polyethylene: Abrasion and Impact Resistant; Stress-Crack Resistant
• Titanium Dioxide: the most effective UV inhibitor, and providing the best track resistant
E <~ergy fo r 'Nhai's Ahead ''' I 6
Covered Conductor Installation Options
Cross-arm Construction
(aka Tree Wire)
,./ . /' , ; / / ,, / /~ 1 / ~~ /'
/l ,·t~ '-
·'' / ~
// .. ,_~ '
/
>~~,('
/ / " 'V '
/ /,_,/ ,·
/ ,.·
-Most of SCE installations on Cross-arm
(SCE uses grey to reduce the impact of sun
light heating effect, thus increase ampacity)
Compact Construction
(aka Spacer Cable)
Some installations will be spacer cable
(e.g. replacement of tree attachments)
E1ergy for 'Nh a1's Ahead ''' I 7
Computer Analysis Study Conclusion
• The analysis concluded that a foreign object contact with covered conductors will
not cause a fault
• The results showed that covered conductors reduce the energy from tens of
thousands of watts to well under one milliwatt
• This reduction prevents ignition (Australia studies: 0.5 Amps for less in 2 seconds
would not ignite)
Simulation Method I Conductor Type Current in I Resistance of 1 Power into
Branch Branch Branch
PSCAD Bare Conductor 2800 rnA 5800 0 45,472 w
Covered Conductor 0.18 rnA 5800 0 0.00019 w
----
CDEGS Bare Conductor 2730 rnA 5800 0 43,227 w
Covered Conductor 0 .04 rnA 5800 0 0.00001 w
I ---------------·-· ---------------
E1ergy for Wha1's Ahead ''' I 8
Computer Analysis & Field Testing of Contact Cases
• Computer Analysis using electrical software (PSCAD, CDEGS) modeling
contacts on conductors for fault current and energy
• Field testing was performed at SCE's EDEF Test Facility in Westminster to
validate the computer model study
• Analysis and test cases:
• TreeNegetation phase-to-phase contact
• Conductor Slapping
• Wildlife phase-to-phase contact
• Metallic Balloon phase-to-phase contact
E'l ergy fo r 'Nha 1's Ahead ''' I 9
Tree Branch contact
• Energized at 12 kV
• Observations
• No arcing
• No damage to the covered conductor
• No damage to the tree branch
E1ergy fo r 'JV ha1's Ahead ''' I 10
Testing Other Contacts: No Arcing and Damage to Covered Conductors
Conductor Slapping Simulating Animal Mylar Balloon
E'lergy fo r W hai's Ahead ''' I 11
Computer Analysis and Field Test Results
• Computer analysis and field testing validated that covered conductor will prevent faults
and prevent ignition due to incidental contact
Current Energy
Simulation Empirical
Power -
Simulated/Test Subject Current with Test Current with Test Power -Simulation
Subject Subject (Watts) Empirical Testing
(Watts)
(mA) (mA)
Palm Frond 0.005 0.001 0.00525 0.00021
Brown Branch 0.006 -0.001 0.17 0.0048
Green Branch 0.003 0.001 0.000012 0.0000014
728 Ohm Resistor
Ph -Ph
0.004 0.044
0.000000012 0.0000015
1024 Ohm Resistor
Ph -Gnd
0.007 0.052
0 .000000050 0.0000028
1024 Ohm Resistor
0.005 0.03
Ph -Ph 0.0000000256 0.0000009216
Metallic Balloon 0.009 0.128 0 .00000000030 0.000000066
• Computer and field test results showed contact current in the range mi ll iamps. An Australian studies
showed testing of 0.5 Amps or less in 2 seconds does not ignite
E'l ergy fo r 'N ha1's Ahead ''' I 12
Understanding Wire Down
• Covered conductors should experience significantly fewer wire-down events
compared to bare conductors
• Wire down risk comparison of bare vs. covered conductors
• Bare conductor falling on the ground (intact or broken) poses risk of ignition and to public
safety
• Covered conductor falling on the ground (intact or broken) poses much less risk of
ignition and to public safety
• Wire down detection
• Traditional protection activates under high current (fault) vs normal current (load)
• Wire-down fault current can often be low (called high impedance faults)
• Typically occurs when wire lands on surfaces such as asphalt, concrete, sand, and dry soil
• Traditional protection schemes have low probability of detecting high impedance faults
• Advanced Wire-down detection:
• For this reason, the industry is investigating alternative protection schemes
• For example, SCE implementing Meter Alarming Downed Energized Conductor (MADEC)
system, which uses customer meter voltage and machine learn1ng algorithms for detecting
wire-down events
E'"lerg y for 'JVhai's Ahead ''' I 13
NEETRAC Testing-Energized Downed Con d uctor
• The following are test cases of
energized wire down scenarios that
were simulated and empirically
tested by NEETRAC
• Person holding broken covered
conductor on line side
• Person holding broken covered
conductor on load side
• Person holding broken bare conductor
on line side
• Person holding broken bare conductor
on load side
*Note that bare conductor test cases were not
performed in the laboratory.
1\l B l C
t80 A M1mrm.wn
~lnp
I I
~ '§t~ '-~I 1 .~~~
II j . I
.,._I tfl!q
! I
11 _;----= a ~.~ I ! -__,
I
I I I ' J
I .
! I
I I
~
E1ergy fo r Whai's Ahead '.,. I 14
NEETRAC Testing Summary
• Test Information:
• Conductor: l/0 Covered Conductor
• Source: 12.447 kV
• Test Results: Human contact current
measured
• Conclusion:
• Covered Conductor Touch Current:
Generally Not Perceptible (below
lmA)
• Overall, covered conductors can
potentially provide public safety
benefits during wire down events
Covered Conductor Bare Conductor
Simulation Results Lab Test Results Simulation Results
(Theoretical Value) (Actual Values) (Theoretical Value)
Line Side 0.220 mA 0.227 rnA 5,300 mA I
Load 0.218 mA 0.227 rnA 34.2 mA
Side
Effects of Electrical Current on the Human Body (Source: CDC}
Current Effect
Below 1 rnA Generally not Perceptible
1mA Faint Tingle
5 rnA Slight Shock; Not painful but disturbing. Average
individual can let go
6-25 rnA (women) Painful shock, loss of muscular control. The freezing
9-30 rnA (men) current or "let-go" range . Individual cannot let go, but
can be thrown away from the circuit if extensor muscles
are stimulated
50-150 rnA Extreme pain, respiratory arrest (breathing stops),
severe muscular contractions. Death is possible
E1 ergy fo r 'Nha1 's Ahead ''' I 15
Service Life for Covered Conductors
• Expected service life of 45 years (equivalent to bare conductor)
• Bare and covered conductor can operate and perform as designed past the 45 yrs
• Beyond its service life, SCE believes the covering will continue to provide partial
protection
• Factors supporting service life and performance:
• Advancement of compound technology and upgrade of manufacturing equipment
• Known service life of cross-linked polyethelyne (XLPE) is 4 0 years minimum
• Rigorous manufacturer qualification and production testing
• Historical records with systems installed since 1951 are st i ll in operation and
performing as designed 67 years ago
E1ergy for 'Nhat's Ahead ''' J 16
Qualification & Production Testing: Ensure Long Service Life
for Covered Conductor
• Qualification Testing per Insulated Cable Engineers Association (ICEA) S-121-733-2016
Standard, for examples:
• Sunlight resistance (UV) testing (validates protection against sunlight, moisture, heat)
• Track resistance testing (validates insulation performance in real life condition)
• Maximum dielectric constant (ensures insulation strength of the covering)
• Routine production testing
• DC resistance (validates electrical properties)
• Unaged and aged tensile and elongation (ensure mechanical strength of the covering)
• Hot Creep (validate cross-linking to thermoset materials)
• Spark Test (validate no pinholes/faults on the insulation)
• Passing qualification and production tests ensures high quality of covered conductor and
45 years of operating life
E1ergy fo r W hat 's Ahead ''' 17
Known Failure Modes
• Covered conductor could have burn down if not adequately designed or installed
• The following known issues are addressed either by design criteria or installation guideline
• Electrical tracking on surface of covers
~ SCE's covered conductor design will include a track resistant XLPE outer layer. Additionally,
SCE will mitigate tracking by using polymeric insulators, using crimped connectors, and
using a low carbon content sheath.
• Arc generated from lightning strikes
~ Surge arresters will be installed at all overhead equipment locations and at UG Dips.
• Aeolian (Wind-Induced) Vibration
~ Sag and Tensions for the covered conductor will take into account the terrain. There will be
~wo separate tables for light and heavy loading. The loading limits account for wind and
ICe.
• Premature Insulation Breakdown
~ SCE's Covered Conductor design uses a Cross-linked High-Density Polyethylene layer to
help resist abrasion. Additionally, covered conductor must be handled witli care in order to
prevent damage to the covering.
~ Discussion with other utilities indicated that older covered conductor design performed as
intended even after 50 years
E'lergy fo r W hat's Ahead ''' I 18
Benchmarking
• Global literature research: Europe, Asia, Australia, U.S .
• Surveying utilities: NEETRAC, WUC, First Quartile
• Benchmarking: KEPCO, Victorian utilities, Northeast uti lities, United Power
• Some key takeaways:
• Most utilities in the U.S. use bare conductors
• Success stories on covered conductor preventing ignitions
• Lessons learned of challenges and improvement
• Collaboration helped SCE to prepare specification , standards and deployment faster
E•ergy fo r 'JV hat's Ahead ''' I 19
Round Table Benchmark with Northeast Utilities
• Conducted an in -person discussion on covered conductor experience with the Northeast utilities:
• Hendrix (manufacturer), Liberty Utilities (New Hampshire), Groveland Light (Massachusetts), Holyoke
(Massachusetts), Middleton (Massachusetts).
• Past standards engineer of Eversource attended as well
• Covered Conductor Systems
• New England overall is approximately 80% Covered Conductor and 20% Bare
• End of life
• Covered conductor still looks and performs the same after 50+ years of service
• Issues
• Manufacturing problems due to ring cuts was experienced in the late 70s before cleanrooms
• Corona is main failure mode (phase to ground through tree), but it takes years to fail
• None has experienced Aeolian vibration issues
• None has encountered water ingress
• Lightning
• Burn down happens at stripped portion
• Add lightning arrestors at equipment, transitions to bare, and dead -ends
• Had enough incidents to decide to install lightning arresters at end of line
• All advise not to install lightning arresters at every 1000 ft. Avoid stripp i ng as much as possible.
E1ergy fo r 'N ha1's Ahead ''' I 20
Ausnet-Covered Conductor Ignition Mitigation
• A a cypress tree blew onto covered conductor during
a storm in December 2015
• Ausnet personnel responded three days after the
storm and found the tree on conductors
• No broken conductor, no service interruption, no
ignition.
• The spacers were knocked off and the conductors
wrapped up.
• Insulation thickness design on each covered
conductor prevented a phase-to-phase fault.
• power shutdown to unwrap the conductors and
reinstall the spacers.
E'lergy fo r W hat's Ahead ''' I 21
An United Power Experience
• We also learned some success stories of covered conductor that prevented
wildfire ignitions from United Power in Colorado
• United Power has experienced wildfires in years past in the forested area, typically
in high elevation of Colorado.
• To mitigate this issue, United Power installed covered conductor on spacer
configuration due to compact right-of-way.
• United Power received a notification from the forest services tree fall on line after
a wind storm on Fall 2018
• United responded to the site and removed the tree, found the covered conductor
intact, with no interruption or wildfire ignition.
• The manager at Untied Power reflected that this wind storm event would have
resulted in a wire down event, and possibly a wildfire ignition if the tree fell on
bare conductor span.
E1ergy fo r 'Nha1's Ahead ''' I 22
Three-wire Dead-end Construction
Introduce new standards for dead-end cover, composite pole and cross-arm
Single Dead-End (3 Phase , 3 W ire ) Construction
• Covered Conductors need to
be stripped at the dead-end
• Use Dead-end Covers to
protect exposed areas
Composite Crossa rm
\.__ Covered Cond ucto r
Composite Pole w ith Protective Shield
Same concept for four-wire and two-wire constructions
E'1e rgy fo r W hat's Ahead ''' I 23
Tangent 2 Wire with Transformer Construct ion
Use Surge Arresters at all Overhead
Equipment
Treat Covered Conductor
systems li ke high lightning area
Covering prevents the arc from
movi ng
Use Bolted Wedge Connector
Cover after installation
Use Protected Ground Wire
Connections to equipment will
be covered
Wildlife protection on equipment
Cover Lightning Arrester,
Transformer Bushing, and Fuse
Overh ead Tra nsform er W1 th 2 Phase. 2 Wire Tangent (Stral gh t L•ne ) Construction and
Associated Protection (Fuses. Lig.hling Arresters. Wildlife Guards )
Vi ce-Top In sulator --../'
(Nylon Insert)
Com posite
Crossarm
Com posite
Crossarm
Ca l-Flre Exempt
Su rge Am~ster
Composite Pole with
Protective Shie ld
Bolted Wedge Connector
(Covered After Installed )
Protected Gro und Wire (PGW )
(AU Connections from Main Line
to Transforme r Bushings)
Same concept for connecting to other equipment: capacitor, switch, remote automatic recloser, etc.
E1ergy fo r W hat's Ahead '... I 24
SCE Historical Fire Causes
FIRE DA T A
Unknown , 16 , 12°/o
Other, 4 , 3%
Equi pment/Facility
Failure, 40 , 30 %
2015-2017
Wire -Wire Contact,
2,2%
Distribution Vo ltag e I n fr a structure in HFRAs
Covered Conductor
mitigates "'60% of
drivers causing
historical ignitions
Contact From Object,
70 ,53 %
Total Count= 132
LEGEl'H>
Suspec ted Initialing Event,
Count . Percent Total
E'lergy fo r W hai's Ahead ''' I 25
Alternatives Considered
• Wildfire Mitigation Options
• Covered Conductor
• Replace existing conductor with new, appropriately sized, covered conductor
• Bare Conductor
• Replace existing conductor with new, appropriately sized, bare conductor
• Underground Relocation
• Relocate existing overhead primary voltages to underground
• See SCE's GSRP and RAMP filings for additional details
E1ergy for 'Nha1's Ahead ''' I 26
Alternatives Mitigation Effectiveness Analysis
II
t;
Ql ·-.c
0
~ ..
Ll.
ti
:1
8
Ql ..
::II
·n;
Ll.
.~
.ij
"' Ll. .......
~
Ql
E a. ·s
C" ,....
ODRM Cause Code Covered Conductor Effective? Bare Conductor Effective?
Animal I Yes No I
1 -
Balloon Yes No
Other Partial (Yes for 'Foreign Material') No II
Vegetation Blown; Yes No Vegetation Overgrown
Vehicle Hit No I, No
Transformer No No
--· ------
Conductor I Wire I. Yes II Yes I
Splice I Connector I Tap Yes Yes
Fuse I BLF I Cutout No No I
Lightning Arrestor No No
---~---------------.---------------
Crossarm No No
Pothead No No
Insulator No No
Switch I Disconnect AR No No
Undergrounding Effective?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
E1ergy fo r 'Nhat's Ahead '"' I 27 '
Comparison of Alternatives
• Covered Conductor has -the greatest mitigation effectiveness per dollar spent and is 85%
less than the cost of Underground Relocation
Alternative Drivers Cost per Mile GSRP Mitigation
Mitigated ($million) Cost Ratio
Covered Conductor 60% 0.43 1.40
Bare Conductor 15% 0.30 0.50
Underground Relocation 100% 3.0 0.33
• SCE's RAMP analysis shows covered conductor has the greatest risk -spend efficiency (RSE)
• -3.4x greater than Bare Conductor
• -4x greater than Underground Relocation
• Speed of Covered Conductor deployment is much faster than Underground Relocation
E1ergy fo r 'JV hai's Ahead ''' I 28
Q_
0 _c
l/)
_.'::::L.
!.-
0
5
!.-
0
4--J u
::::J u c
0 u
~ u m
ro
Q.)
Q) 1""""1
_c
!.-0
<(
Q) N
(f) +..-
> ...
ro
,.........
_c
0 N
s u >.
1-
0
!.....
-u ro
>
OJ
:::::l
,_
~ !.....
Q.) ..0
c
ll..
w
Q) u u...
Comparison of Alternatives
• Covered Conductor has the greatest mitigation effectiveness per dollar spent and is 85%
less than the cost of Underground Relocation
Alternative Drivers Cost per Mile GSRP Mitigation
Mitigated ($million) Cost Ratio
Covered Conductor 60% 0.43 1.40
Bare Conductor 15% 0.30 0.50
Underground Relocation 100% 3.0 0.33
• SCE's RAMP analysis shows covered conductor has the greatest risk -spend efficiency (RSE)
• -3.4x greater than Bare Conductor
• -4x greater than Underground Relocation
• Speed of Covered Conductor deployment is much faster than Underground Relocation
Energy fo r 'Nha1's Ahead ''' I 28
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, November 3, 2020 8:31 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: I have attached, for your review, a Supplemental analysis related to the Funiciello
Agenda Item
Attachments: BRM Supp Nov. 1 6pm.pdf
Late corr
From: Brad Malamud <brad@malamuds.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2020 6:50PM
To: wwynder@awattorneys.com; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>;
Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>;
Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kathy Campbell <kc111@cox.net>; Brad Malamud <brad@malamuds.com>
Subject: I have attached, for your review, a Supplemental analysis related to the Funiciello Agenda Item
1 Lf.
Law Offices of Brad Malamud
2340 S. El Camino Real, Suite 1
San Clemente, CA 92672
November 1, 2020
THIS LETTER SUPPLEMENTS MY LETTER OF OCTOBER 30, 2020.
RE: Summary of Legal Points that Prove that the Funiciellos do not have the right to place
utilities poles and/or lines on the HOA's property adjacent to Crest Road.
In reviewing the City Council meetings, Staff Reports, City Staff, and City Attorney
letters, the Staff, City Attorney, and the Funiciellos have failed to articulate any legal basis for
the Funiciellos and their contractors to relocate the utility poles and lines onto the HOA property
adjacent to Crest Road.
Without a valid legal basis, the Funiciellos and their contractors cannot enter onto HOA
property.
Simply put: the apparent legal argument for the Funiciellos to be permitted to relocate utility
poles and transmission lines onto HOA property adjacent to Crest Road is that the Funiciellos
and their contractors will be using the City right-of-way over Crest Road. They are not using the
City's easement and the applied-for encroachment permit is limited under RPV Ordinance to the
street; here Crest Road. Therefore, even if granted, and it should be denied, the Funiciellos do
not have a legal basis to trespass onto HOA property adjacent to Crest Road, even if they obtain
an encroachment permit. It really is that straight forward and simple. Nowhere does anyone
state or establish any other basis (the access to the HOA land other than Crest Road) to allow the
Funiciellos or their contractors to trespass onto the HOA property.
Below, I will outline the reasons why the Funiciellos are not permitted to relocate the
utilities onto HOA property adjacent to Crest Roach.
There is no basis upon which the Funiciellos have a legal right to place utility poles and
lines on HOA property adjacent to Crest Road
July 21, 2020 Staff Report
The July 21, 2020 Staff Report raises a number of issues, many of which are addressed
below.
A. On Page 4, the easement from Shapell Industries, Inc, "abandoned vehicular access and
dedicated easements to the City ... "
B. "the City undertook its survey, which confirmed that the relevant portion of Crest Road
for which the encroachment easement is sought is dedicated as a City public-right-of-
1
way and is not on any HOA property." The right-of-way is limited to non-HOA
property, i.e. Crest Road, per the Staff Report.
1. Because the right-of-way is, per the survey, "not on any HOA property" it
is limited to Crest Road.
11. The City Attorney admits the easement (not the right-of-way) is a utility
easement and is on HOA property. The City Attorney admits that the
Easement is not a fee interest. The HOA owns the non-Crest Road
property which underlies the easement.
111. Page 5 clarifies an important fact: "Moreover, a temporary encroachment
permit does not constitute a 'right or interest' in the easement property."
That is true and crucial. The encroachment permit relates to the right-of-
way and is limited to Crest Road. It is not related in any way to the City
utility easement.
IV. RPV encroachment permits are limited by the RPVMC to access
to/on/above/below City streets, here Crest Road, not to easements.
v. "Rather, the [encroachment] permit authorizes the holder to gain
temporary access to the easement area necessary to construct a given
project." This is a false and misleading statement. The encroachment
permit is unrelated in any way to the easement and the Staff and City
Attorney are well aware of this distinction, but intentionally mislead the
Council.
VI. The "easement area" is not Crest Road, but rather HOA property adjacent
to Crest Road. Staff misstates the law because an encroachment permit
does not allow the Funiciellos to have any access to HOA property, even
if the City has an easement in said property. Nor does the encroachment
permit provide permission or approval for the Funiciellos use of the
City's utility easement.
v11. The Funiciellos cannot use the City utility easement, because the
Funiciellos are not a utility in California, because the easement is not
assignable or transferable, and because the easement can only be used by
the City based on necessity and here there is no necessity.
vm. Page 6 of the July 21, 2020 Staff Report states that: "The City's review of
an encroachment permit is limited to compliance with the City's
Municipal Code."
1. While this is not the law, an approved encroachment permit's use
must be consistent with RPV and state law in addition to HOA
property rights. Here, the encroachment permit is limited to Crest
Road.
2. Review of an encroachment permit is not limited to compliance
and the Staff report fails to state the basis for this absurd
2
conclusion. If that were the case, anyone could build anything
below, above, or on a city street by proving such building is in
compliance with the "City's Municipal Code" even if the City
Council and 99% of residents opposed.
IX. The review of the permit is discretionary. An encroachment permit is not
an "over the counter" permit, in which no discretion is allowed. In fact,
there is no printed or form to fill out. The discretion is placed in a Staff
member, by ordinance. The discretion is his/hers (or the Council's). If
that were not the case, the ordinance would state: Staffs review of an
application for an encroachment permit is limited to compliance with City
Municipal Code. No such suggestion let alone language exists.
x. If, for example, the Funiciellos applied for an encroachment permit to
place a 25' by 25' ammunition armory 10' below Crest Road, the City
has the discretion to deny the permit, even if the armory complies with
the City's municipal code. It is no different with utility lines and poles.
XL There is no legally recognized concept of an "encroachment easement";
no such thing exists.
xii. Assuming there is a survey, where is it?
xu1. The language of the Tract Map controls, not a "survey."
XIV. What type of survey was conducted? Was it a sampling or a geographic
plotting?
xv. An easement and a right-of-way are two different property rights that
grant limited rights to use property owned by someone else: here the
HOA.
1. The Easement is over HOA property adjacent to Crest Road.
2. The right-of-way is a dedication of Crest Road to the City as Crest
Road existed on the date of the dedication.
3. Only the right-of-way is relevant here, as the Staff Report and
City Attorney letters state the encroachment permit is limited to
the right-of-way, and because even if it were not so based, under
RPVMC, an encroachment permit is limited to the street.
4. The City Staff and the City Attorney have improperly conflated
these two different limited property rights thus creating confusion
by attempting to use both rights together. This is not legal or
proper. Each right or use must be reviewed and analyzed
separately.
xvi. The City Attorney states "The language ofthe dedication is itself, clear
and specific. The City has legal authority to authorize "connections" of
"public utilities" ... that are "incidental" to the City's use and enjoyment
of the right-of-way."
3
1. This is false and misleading.
2. First, the City, not the Funiciellos, can make connections under
the Easement, not the right-of-way.
a. The Funiciellos are not permitted to make connections.
3. The Funiciellos' use is not incidental to the City's use, as the City
is not using the Easement. If there is no City use, there cannot be
an incidental use.
4. Under state law, the Funiciellos are not a utility and do not have
their own easement over HOA property, which they would need to
enter or build on HOA property.
5. More crucially, the only basis for the encroachment permit is the
right-of-way, not the easement.
6. Even if the easement were assignable to the Funiciellos, which it
isn't, there is no necessity for anyone to use the easement.
7. Even if the easement were assignable, the encroachment permit
would not allow the Funiciellos access to the easement (HOA
adjacent property) as the location of the easement where the poles
and lines are to be placed is not on/above/below Crest Road, the
limited area of access under the encroachment permit.
November 5, 2019 Memo
C. On November 5, 2019, the Assistant City Attorney Ms. Gerli provided a
MEMORANDUM to Sassoon, Willmore, Yap, and Mihranian. The issues discussed
therein are analyzed below:
a. "The issues associated with public utilities operating within the public right of
way are complex, ... what is clear is that the City has very limited authority in
this regard-the City is limited to time, place, and manner regulations of public
utility actions in the public right of way."
b. That is a lot of information to unpack:
1. The Funiciellos are not a public utility. Therefore, none of the remaining
discussion is relevant to their application.
11. While the City may be limited in regulating "public utility actions" it has
no such limitation regarding the non-utility Funiciellos.
111. Even to the extent the City is constrained (no statute or case law
mentioned) this constraint is limited to the "public right of way" which is
limited to Crest Road.
1v. Assuming Crest Road is a public right-of-way, then only Crest Road is
the subject of any limitations, not the HOA adjacent property.
v. Ms. Gerli continues: "the utility applies to the CPUC ... "
Here, the Funiciellos are not a utility. They never applied to the CPUC.
4
v1. Nowhere does Ms. Gerli state that the City encroachment permit is
limited to Crest Road, even though this is clear by the express language
of the Municipal Code and the actual dedication of "Crest Road" in the
Tract Map, as well as the fact that the right-of-way is not a utility right-
of-way.
vn. This is critical: The dedicated right-of-way (not described as a right-of-
way in the dedication on the Tract Map), is for the street, not for a utility
use.
vn1. Because the encroachment permit is limited to Crest Road, even if
approved, the Funiciellos have never applied for, or been granted,
permission to access the HOA property adjacent to Crest Road.
c. Regarding the Relocation of poles and lines onto HOA adjacent property, Ms.
Gerli states:
"Finally, the HOA has asserted that the relocation is not occurring within the
public right of way. However, the HOA has not demonstrated that this is the
case. [this is demonstrated above.] Both the City Attorneys' Office and the City
Engineer have reviewed the tract map associated with this property, and have
concluded that the relocation is taking place firmly within the public right of
way.
d. This is false and misleading-see the analysis above and below. No factual basis
or legal authority for this conclusion is provided. Instead, it appears everyone
should just take their unsupported word for this critical determination. All
relocation on the HOA adjacent property is outside the right-of-way (Crest
Road). On this, there is no debate. Thus, the statement of the "Engineer" is
simply not true.
e. Ms. Gerli apparently fails to understand that the right-of-way is not the same as
the City easement. The right of way, under the tract map dedication, is limited
exclusively for vehicular traffic and then only to Crest Road. The poles and
transmission lines extend beyond Crest Road onto HOA property and are not
related to vehicles and road use.
f. Ms. Gerli fails to apply the RPV Ordinance that defines a right-of-way as limited
to streets.
g. Ms. Gerli fails to apply the RPV Ordinance that encroachment permits are
limited to City streets.
h. Conclusion:
The encroachment permit is not required to be issued, and even if issued, is
limited to Crest Road and does not permit the Funiciellos or their contractors to
enter, access or work on HOA property adjacent to Crest Road.
Mr. Wynder's January 15, 2020 Letter
5
D. The Wynder January 15, 2020 letter states in part:
a. "This letter is intended to provide you (Ms. Campbell) with the City's
determination regarding the Crest Road public right of way, specifically where
the Southern California Edison poles are intended to be relocated from Mr.
Funiciello' s property."
1. First, these are not SC Edison poles for purposes of permits. They are
Funiciello poles.
11. Second, Mr. Wynder correctly states the limit of the "right ofway" is
CREST ROAD, not the HOA adjacent property and not the City utility
easement.
111. "That the relevant portion of Crest Road is dedicated to public right-of-
way (for vehicular traffic) was confirmed by the City's own survey of the
area."
1. This is fmiher proof that the right-of-way is, and remains, only
on/below/above CREST ROAD, not the adjacent HOA property.
IV. "In any event, the road (Crest Road) has been used as public right of way
for a long time, at least since 1979 .... a public right of way has also been
created at common law. (citation omitted).
1. This is critical. Again, Mr. Wynder admits that the right-of-way,
by dedication or common law, is limited to Crest Road.
2. The poles and lines are not proposed to be relocated
on/above/below Crest Road. They are located on HOA private
prope1iy adjacent to Crest Road, which is not covered by the
right-of-way or the encroachment permit.
3. Thus, an encroachment permit on the Crest Road right-of-way
does not permit anyone, including the Funiciellos or their
contractors, to enter, access or work on the BOA's adjacent
property.
Mr. Wynder's May 29,2020 Letter to Ms. Campbell and Mr. Spiegel
E. Mr. Wynder's May 29, 2020 letter to Campbell and Spiegel:
a. "Tract Map No. 33206 is the dispositive instrument in resolving and delineating
the right-of-way issues(s). The Map ... identifies the then-property owner
Shapell Industries, Inc. abandoned vehicular access and dedicated easements to
th C 'ty " e 1 ...
1. Mr. Wynder then describes the easement language. This is unrelated to
the vehicular right-of-way dedication.
11. Yet Mr. Wynder attempts to conflate and combine the two, easement and
right-of-way, into a single property right, is simply not the law. They are
6
separate and independent dedications to the City. Neither dedication
increases the City's right as to the other dedication.
b. The next sentence is odd and difficult to understand or interpret. "Moreover, the
City understood its own survey (which is irrelevant) which confirmed that the
relevant portion of Crest Road for which the encroachment easement is sought is
dedicated as a City public right-of-way and is not "your" property."
1. First, there is no such thing as an "encroachment easement." What is
being sought by the Funiciellos is an "encroachment permit" which under
RPV law, regardless of any 'survey' is limited to city streets, here, Crest
Road. The City has an easement, but it is not over Crest Road and is not
a right-of-way.
11. Second, the right-of-way is limited to Crest Road. True.
m. The easement is not limited to Crest Road. However, if the City Attorney
is now stating as a fact that the easement is limited to Crest Road, the
HOA is willing to agree with this limitation. If that is true, then no poles
or lines are permitted under the easement (not requested at this time)
anywhere except above/below/on Crest Road. The application(s) show
the poles and lines on the HOA property adjacent to Crest Road.
1. If the easement is limited to Crest Road, then the poles and lines
cannot be placed anywhere except Crest Road regardless if it is
based on the City's right-of-way or the City's utility easement
(which the Funiciellos cannot use in any event).
c. "The language of this (Confusing-is "this" the right-of-way or the easement?)
dedication is clear and specific. The City has the legal authority to authorize
"connections" of "public utilities" ... that are "incidental" to the City's use and
enjoyment of the right-of-way."
1. The right-of-way is unrelated in any way to public utilities or
connections. It is for a street, Crest Road. The easement, not relevant
here, contains the language regarding connections and utilities.
11. Here, again, the Funiciellos are not a public utility.
111. Here, again, the City's use of the right-of-way is only related to vehicular
traffic, and thus utilities are not incidental.
1v. Here, again, the City does not use the right-of-way for SCEdison or other
utilities, so this use is not "incidental to the City's use."
v. Here, again, the "incidental use" language does not apply to the right-of-
way. It applies to the City's utility easement. Therefore, it has no
application here.
d. "As of the writing of this letter, no application has yet been submitted for
issuance of the encroachment permit."
7
1. On June 1, 2020, Mr. Wynder admits he was unaware of 2 applications
dated May 2019, and October 2019.
11. The first was granted, but a stop order was issued "because of the
unpermitted tree removal on Crest Road."
1. Even that is not true. The tree(s) were removed from the HOA
adjacent property, not Crest Road, because if that were the case,
the trees would have been located on the roadway, which they
were not.
2. Why was Mr. Wynder unaware of the previous permit application
and the stop order and illegal tree removal?
Mr. Wynder's June 15, 2020 Letter
F. June 15, 2020 Wynder Letter:
a. "As we previously discussed, the proposed work is to be completed within the
public right-of-way, within the easement owned solely by the City."
1. The right-of-way is Crest Road. By contrast, the Easement is not over
Crest Road, instead it extends onto the HOA's property adjacent to Crest
Road. The proposed work cannot be on the HOA's adjacent property if it
is "within the public right-of-way."
11. The right-of-way is over Crest Road.
111. The easement is over the HOA adjacent land, owned 100% by the HOA,
not the City. The City has a dedicated easement. The City does not own
a fee interest. The fee interest is owned 100% by the HOA.
IV. The easement is not the right-of-way, and visa versa.
But to continue this charade, the City Attorney continues to mislead,
misstate the law, and conflate and combine the two separate legal
concepts of right-of-way and easement, which he cannot legally do.
b. Mr. Wynder admits: "While it is true that the grant of easement authorizes the
City 'to prohibit the construction of structures ... "'
1. The City can prohibit poles, which are structures. That is "discretion."
11. Yet the Funiciellos and City admit that the Funiciellos are not proceeding
under the City easement, but instead EXCLUSIVELY under the City's
right-of-way over/below/on Crest Road.
111. As such, the easement is not relevant and has no application here to this
Agenda Item and meeting, or to any Funiciello right to enter or access
HOA property.
IV. One reason the easement is not relevant here is that the City cannot assign
its utility easement to anyone, including a private party (illegal under
California law), and because there is no necessity to use the easement to
8
burden the servient tenement (here the HOA).
Thus, even the City itself cannot utilize the utility easement for SC
Edison lines without showing necessity. A private, customer-initiated
project is not necessity. Edison and the CPUC admit this is a private
project.
The following do not provide a legal basis for the Funiciellos to place these poles and
lines on the HOA adjacent private property:
1. The City Utility Easement.
a. While the City may have a right to use the utility easement, it does not have the
right to allow the Funiciellos to use the easement.
b. The City cannot assign or permit others to use an easement granted to the City
alone.
c. The wording of the Tract Map City utility easement dedication appears to limit
the use of the City utility easement to the in-place utilities, water and sewer lines,
but that issue is only relevant if the City itself is seeking use of HOA property,
which it is not in this case.
d. The City, itself, can only use the easement if the poles and lines are required
(necessary) to be moved onto HOA property (see above). This is California law,
that use of an easement is only proper when the use is for necessity.
1. There is no necessity.
u. SC Edison and Staff have stated there is no necessity. There has been no
discussion of necessity or finding of necessity.
The City Easement does not provide a legal basis for the Funiciellos to place utility poles
and lines on the HOA adjacent property.
2. The City owns a Fee interest in the HOA adjacent land.
a. The City Attorney has stated on the record the City DOESN'T own a fee interest.
b. The City Attorney's statement to the effect that if it looks like a duck, and quacks
like a duck, it is a duck may be a charming colloquial expression, but it is not a
legal axiom and has no application here.
c. An easement is a limited right to use property owned by the grantor (servient
tenement) to the City. It is not the grant of a fee interest.
d. No fee interest was transferred to the City and the City and Funiciellos don't
dispute this fact.
e. All easements contain limitations that do not apply to a fee interest because an
easement is a grant of certain and specific rights. All uses must be within the
scope of the specific grant.
f. Easements are private and non-transferable.
9
The non-existent City Fee Interest does not provide a legal a basis for the Funiciellos to
place utility poles and lines on the HOA adjacent property.
3. Right-of-Way regarding Crest Road.
a. This issue is important as the July 21, 2020 Agenda Report states the HOA and
residents "expressed concern regarding the city's pending issuance of an
encroachment permit to allow the relocation of certain Southern California
Edison ... utility poles and transmission lines from the property ... to across the
street and within City right-of-way on Crest Road.
1. Thus, the issue was clearly framed. The right-of-way is "on Crest Road"
not adjacent to Crest Road on HOA property.
11. The subject poles and transmission lines are not proposed to be relocated
on the right-of-way, and therefore are not covered by the encroachment
permit and extend beyond the right-of-way and encroachment permit.
b. The Tract Map states clearly that there is dedication of the existing CREST
ROAD, to the City for vehicular traffic-presumably that is the right-of-way.
c. The right-of-way (dedication) is for the road and vehicular traffic.
1. There is no mention of utility rights and if there are such rights, these
rights extend only below, over, and on Crest Road, the subject of the
dedication.
11. A separate dedication to the City of utility rights as an Easement is
included as a separate dedication on the same Tract Map. Thus, the right-
of-way for traffic is not the easement for utilities.
The City Easement does not provide a legal a basis for the Funiciellos to place utility poles
and lines on the HOA adjacent property.
4. The property over which an Encroachment Permit permits building/encroachment.
a. The July 21, 2020 Agenda Report added details regarding the possible
encroachment permit.
1. "RPVMC Section 12.04.030 vests in the Director of Public works 'all
powers duties and responsibilities ... with respect to permits, ...
encroachments in city streets ... " (bolded emphasis in original by Mr.
Wynder)
11. A permit was issued on May 6, 2019.
111. Between June 23, 2019 and June 27, 2019, "the contractor exceeded the
scope of the permit, resulting in several mature pine trees being
unlawfully removed. The contractor also cut a trench in excess of the
scope of the permit."
IV. "On August 4, 2019, the initial encroachment permit expired."
v. On June 11, 2020, "representatives of the HOA forwarded ... 'Notice of
Appeal of Any Encroachment Permit Issued."'
10
b. The Community Development Director or another city representative, stated at
the October 20, 2020 meeting that the Encroachment Permit extended to the
"Right-of-Way."
1. This is a misstatement ofRPV law. (see above).
11. RPVMC limits an encroachment permit to "streets," not right-of-way(s).
111. Thus, the Funiciellos cannot use an encroachment permit to trespass,
access, enter onto, move, direct, trench, place poles or lines on HOA
property adjacent to Crest Road.
The encroachment permit does not provide a legal basis for the Funiciellos to place utility
poles and lines on the HOA adjacent property.
No other theory has been presented to the Council or Staff that would allow the Funiciellos
to relocate the utilities onto HOA private property.
11
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late carr
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, November 3, 2020 3:20 PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Supplemental Letter #2 on behalf of HOA
GP Supp Letter Nov 3.pdf
From: Brad Malamud <brad@malamuds.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 3:08 PM
To: wwynder@awattorneys.com; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>;
Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>;
Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kathy Campbell <kc111@cox.net>
Subject: Supplemental Letter #2 on behalf of HOA
This is my second supplemental letter. This letter addresses the RPV General Plan and RPV Code Section 12.12.020 et
seq.
It appears that Staff has failed to comply with the City General Plan in its discretionary review of the Encroachment
Permit.
1
Law Offices of Brad Malamud
2340 S. El Camino Real, Suite 1
San Clemente, CA 92672
November 3, 2020
SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER #2
RE: GENERAL PLAN RESTRICTIONS AND CITY ORDINANCE 12.12.020 et seq.
Issues Involved
Further review indicates that previous Agenda Reports and Staff comments failed to include a
discussion of the City's General Plan and RPV Code Sections 12.12.020, and for that reason this
is the first time I have commented on those laws and their effect on the decision before the
Council.
Under the General Plan, relocated utility poles and lines are required to be installed
underground.
Under RPV Code Sections 12.12.020 et seq, ifthe Funiciellos are allowed to relocate the utility
poles and lines to HOA property, above ground, it would eliminate the Funiciellos' future
liability to pay for undergrounding those utilities and might result in HOA being liable in the
future to pay to underground the utilities, even though the HOA did not place the poles and lines
on their property and opposed doing so. Shifting future liability cannot be allowed. If this
relocation is approved, the City require that the Funiciellos and their successors agree to pay for
all future costs of undergrounding.
In September 2018, RPV adopted its General Plan. That plan guides future development in
RPV. The General Plan is RPV law and policy. The General Plan controls development
including the relocation of utilities.
RPV Code Sections 12.12.020 et seq., establish that the City Council is empowered to force
utilities to be placed underground. This is consistent with the General Plan requirement
regarding placement of relocated (new) utilities.
The Nov. 4, 2020 StaffReport, prior Staff Reports, and Staff Council meeting comments failed
to point out, or reference, the General Plan restrictions related to utility poles and transmission
lines-including the requirement to underground those utilities. It strains credibility that Staff,
including multiple Public Works Directors, Community Development Directors, City Managers,
and the City Attorney were either unaware or chose to ignore the 2018 General Plan and RPV
Code Section 12.12.020 et seq., requirements to underground new relocated utilities, and failed
to require the relocation to be fully underground.
RPV policy and law require that new relocated utilities be undergrounded. There is no reason
that the undergrounding isn't being required of the Funiciello project. Compliance with the law
demands it. Staff has failed to explain why RPV policy and law are being ignored.
1
The General Plan is applicable and controls decisions and approvals relating to this project.
Under the 2018 General Plan, when utility lines and poles are relocated, those utilities are
required to be placed underground.
To ensure the utilities are placed underground, the HOA asks Council to take action under RPV
Code Section 12.12.020 et seq., to require that any relocation of the Funiciellos' utility lines be
undergrounded.
Scope and Effect of the General Plan
To understand the scope and legal effect of the City's General Plan, The California Municipal
Law Handbook, 2019 edition states:
Section 10.16:
"The general plan is at the top of the hierarchy of a local government's
land use regulations; zoning and other land use decisions must conform
to the general plan. (citing Lesher Communications and other cases) ... "
Section 10.89:
"The zoning ordinance of a general law city must be consistent with
its general plan. Govt C section 65860."
RPV is a general law city. Therefore, its zoning laws, which include utility issues, must be
consistent with the 2018 General Plan, meaning that the relocated utilities must be placed
underground. (See below.) Thus, the requirements of the General Plan control the relocation of
the Funiciellos' utility poles and lines.
General Plan IV Circulation Element.
Page C-7:
Infrastructure Systems
30. Discourage the installation or extension of any infrastructure
component into any area known to be hazardous unless appropriate
liability safeguards (such as geological hazard abatement districts) are in
place and adequate mitigation measures are incorporated into the design.
31. Allow new development only where adequate infrastructure systems
can reasonably be provided.
Resource System
36. Review any proposed development, major new resource uses, or
significant changes to resource systems for impacts to the surrounding
neighborhood and community.
2
Page C-8
39. Underground all new power lines and communications cables and
implement programs to place existing lines and cables underground,
where feasible.
40. Encourage the establishment ofundergrounding assessment districts
by homeowners in areas of existing overhead lines.
41. Investigate funding sources to be used in local undergrounding
programs for areas of existing overhead lines.
Communication Systems
Page C-22
Electricity
51. Require the underground installation of cable communications.
"Although the impact of the electric infrastructure on the city
environment is considered to be small, overhead transmission lines,
transformers, and associated poles do pose a significant adverse visual
impacts and potential safety hazards. Overhead wires and associated
hardware have caused brush fires and are vulnerable to damage caused
by natural conditions (such as high winds, lightning, and tree growth)
and human-caused conditions (such as automobile accidents), ... safety
hazards if severed or broken. In addition, overhead wires are an
unsightly appendage of a necessary infrastructure component, and cause
considerable disturbance to view .... Additionally, the City's
Development Code requires that all utility lines installed to serve new
construction and significant remodels be placed underground from an
existing power pole or other point of connection. Limitations do exist in
respect to undergrounding utility lines; however, the distribution lines
can be and are being undergrounded."
ANALYSIS
Applying the General Plan requirements to the current application, the utility lines are required
to be placed underground.
The General Plan sets forth the policy that all new utilities, both cable and electric, are to be
placed underground for safety and aesthetics.
The General Plan requires review for any significant changes to resource systems. This
proposed relocation qualifies for that review. If, and when, the review takes place, the General
Plan policy of undergrounding must be applied to the relocated utilities.
3
"Underground all new power lines and communications cables and
implement programs to place existing lines and cables underground,
where feasible."
Here, the lines and poles will be new. It is feasible to place them underground. The only sated
objection is that the Funiciellos don't want to pay the incremental additional costs of
undergrounding (as compared to using one or more poles and above-ground lines). Yet the
General Plan requires all new power lines and cables to be placed underground.
"Require the underground installation of cable communications."
The General Plan contains the law and policy that tells Staff that the City is required to ensure
that all cable communication lines, and electric lines, are totally underground. Poles are not
permitted.
The General Plan related to electricity states that overhead poles create aesthetic and safety
concerns that must be eliminated.
"The City's Development Code requires that all utility lines installed
to serve new construction and significant remodels be placed
underground from an existing power pole or other point of
connection."
While possibly not applicable here, the General Plan is clear that any time significant work is
being performed, poles and lines must be undergrounded.
The City's Development Code also requires undergrounding of utility lines even for remodels. It
is no different here. The Funiciellos are seeking to remove the lines from their property, likely
as a part of a future remodel, and as such the Development Code cannot be skirted by serially
applying for permits.
RPV Code Sections 12.12.020 et seq., Public Hearing by Council
Under RPV Code Sections 12.12.020 et seq.
"The council may from time to time call public hearing to ascertain
whether the public necessity, health, safety or welfare, requires the
removal of poles, overhead wire and associated overhead structures
within designated areas of the city and the underground installation
of wires and facilities for supplying electricity, communication, or
similar or associated services."
RPV Code Section 12.12.020 is consistent with the General Plan and provides that the Council,
on its own initiative, can require poles and lines to be undergrounded.
If there was ever a time to enforce and/or implement the General Plan and RPV Code Section
12.12.020, it is here and now.
4
RPV Code Section 12.12.050 makes it unlawful "for any person or utility to erect, construct,
place, keep, maintain, continue, employ or operate poles, overhead wires and associated
overhead structures in the district ... "
RPV Code Section 12.12.100 requires the property owner to pay for undergrounding the utilities
and poles. If the Funiciellos are allowed to relocate the utilities above ground, the Funiciellos
must indemnifY the HOA for any future costs to underground utilities as a pre-condition to being
allowed to relocate the utilities.
CONCLUSION
The General Plan, and City law and policy require that new utilities, including relocation of
electricity and cable communications, must be placed underground for both safety and aesthetic
reasons.
Based on the requirements of the General Plan, the HOA requests that the Council deny the
encroachment permit until the Funiciellos comply with the General Plan's requirement for the
undergrounding of all utilities.
RPV Code Section 12.12.020 et seq., also requires utilities to be undergrounded if the Council
requires undergrounding of the lines. This requirement is consistent with the General Plan, and
the Council should take that issue up at its next meeting, or as soon as possible thereafter, and
require the relocated lines to be undergrounded.
The Council and the Director of Public Works should deny the encroachment permit for all of
the reasons previously cited, including the failure of the Funiciellos project plan place all utilities
underground.
5
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, November 3, 2020 8:15AM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: Utility Pole Relocation 3867 Crest Road October 20 Agenda and Staff Report
11-04-20 READ INTO RECORD
From: Alex Pop <alexpop45@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 12:37 PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Utility Pole Relocation 3867 Crest Road October 20 Agenda and Staff Report 11-04-20 READ INTO RECORD
Sorry Teri but I needed to make a spelling correction and this is the corrected version.
Thank you for understating.
Alex
PLEASE READ INTO RECORD
To Honorable Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,
My name is Alex Pop, and I also spoke at the October 20th hearing. After debating the legal and technical merits of Funicello
family's request, the question remains, if RPV City Council is going to permit a private landowner to transfer the burden of
utility poles on his property to another landowner property.
The facts in front of you are:
1. Allegedly, Public Works staff promised Mr. Funicello the approval of his application if some conditions were
met. One of the conditions was that a fire safety report would state that the utility poles relocation is compliant with
fire safety standards,
2. The area where the utility poles were requested to be moved was populated by a dense cluster of mature
trees, and the fire hazard was obvious.
A landscape contractor, directly or indirectly paid by the Funicello family, without any permit from
RPVE, trespassed on our property, and cut 4 magnificent trees on our property.
Conveniently, after the trees were removed, an unverified fire safety assessment was obtained.
3. Pressed by our HOA President, the Public Works Director organized a meeting and informed him about the
Funicello's family project.
4. During the July 21st hearing, it has been implied by Mr. Funicello that he can prove in court that Public Works
staff encouraged him into preparing all engineering plans. Public Works Director and City Attorney argued that:
• It is at City Council discretion to impose easements on a private property.
• Approve transferring the burden of utility poles from one landowner property to another
landowner property.
• And, the City Council has no legal or financial exposure for approving a fire unsafe project.
1 q.
Satisfied with this marginal technical and legal advice, Mayer Pro Tempore, decided to "moved" to authorize the
project. City Council Ferraro vote was also to continue the project implementation.
City Council Bradly, suggested an underground solution. This solution would be legally defensible, as being a fire
safety project that would benefit the entire Crest Road landowner's community.
5. During the October 20, 2020 meeting, we heard Edison representative saying that Edison considered the
existing setup reliable and safe, and they prepared the plans to perform the utility poles transfer only as result of a
contract with a private party and not as a better fire safety solution for the entire community.
In conclusion, it is obvious to all of us, that this decision is about RPV City Council fairness. The alternatives are:
Thank you,
Alex Pop
1. Stop the project:
• As Mr. Funicello implied, the City might face a lawsuit.
The RPVE community understands that sometimes the staff makes mistakes and
lawsuits are just another "cost of doing business", but would not understand City Council
covering for them with an unfair decision.
2. Approving the project,
• City Council might also face a legal lawsuit this time initiated by RPVE.
• Public Works will set up a precedent for similar projects, also encouraging properties
trespassing and vandalism.
• But the most damaging and long-lasting effect is, the City Council losing their credibility
within our community.
As George Washington wrote to Henry Lee Jr in October 31,1786, about the US
constitution: Influence is no government. Let us have one by which our lives,
liberties, and properties will be secured.
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ara Mihranian
Monday, November 2, 2020 9:47 PM
CityCierk
Ramzi Awwad; Ken Rukavina
FW: Response to Nov. 4 Staff Report 3867 Crest Road Relocation Project
KC Letter to Council Nov. 2.pdf
Please add this to late correspondence.
Ara
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy Campbell [mailto:kc111@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 2:22 PM
To: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro
<barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Response to Nov. 4 Staff Report 3867 Crest Road Relocation Project
Dear John, Eric, Dave, Barbara and Ken:
Please see my attached letter regarding the 3867 Crest Road Relocation Project.
I also would like to inform you that there has been no outreach by Mr.
Funiciello to the HOA, following the last Council meeting on October 20.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Kathy Campbell
1
1
Dear City Council Member:
In addition to the two previous letters sent to you by the HOA’s counsel, Attorney Brad
Malamud, I have the following comments:
There is no ordinance or law that permits one neighbor to relocate a burden from her
property to someone else’s private property. Period. Yet that is what the Funiciellos are
asking this Council to do through the grant of an encroachment permit.
The HOA has suggested that a fair compromise could require the Funiciellos to
underground all the utilities at their sole expense.
Over the years, the basis upon which the Funiciellos are permitted to relocate poles and
lines onto HOA property has changed from the “City owns the fee argument,” to the
“Funiciellos can use the City’s easement argument,” to the latest argument that the City
acquired a “public right of way” over Crest Road as part of the dedication of Crest Road by
the Developer. This last argument limits the Funiciellos to Crest Road, and does not
permit them to relocate the poles or lines on the HOA adjacent property (where they are
planning the relocation). No request of any type has been made by the Funiciellos to use
any City right to the HOA adjacent property, nor have the Funiciellos advanced any
personal rights they own to access or use the HOA adjacent property.
Thus, regardless of what the Council decides on granting or denying the encroachment
permit over the Crest Road right-of-way, the Funiciellos have no right to relocate the
utilities anywhere except above, below, or onto Crest Road, based on the granting of the
encroachment permit.
The Tract Map dedicated limited rights to the City, including three specific items:
1. The Developer dedicated the HOA’s interest in Crest Road to the City for vehicular
travel (related directly to the HOA’s abandonment of access for that portion of
Crest Road from HOA homes – referred to by the City as the “right-of-way.”)
2. The Developer Abandoned Vehicular Access over the HOA property adjacent to
Crest Road for as long as Crest Road remained a public street.
3. The Developer granted a utility easement to the City.
None of these three “grants” created a public right of way for utilities.
The City utility easement from the Developer cannot be assigned to the Funiciellos.
Neither the Funiciellos, nor the City, offer any legal authority for an assignment or
permissive use of the City’s utility easement. Nor has the issue of assignment or
2
permissive use ever been requested by the Funiciellos or properly put before the
Council for discussion or action. It is not before the Council on November 4, 2020.
The November 4, 2020 Agenda Item does not contain any request by the Funiciellos to
obtain a permit or permissive use of the City’s utility easement, which use is not permitted in
any case, but instead is limited to the encroachment permit approval.
Summarizing the arguments which have been repeatedly presented, and apparently
ignored, by the City Staff and City Attorney:
1. The Encroachment Permit is the only issue properly before the Council.
2. The Encroachment Permit is a Discretionary Permit. This is clear as there is no
“City checklist” and the permit is not an “over the counter” permit.
3. As a discretionary permit, the Council or Public Works Director is permitted to
deny the permit for any valid reason. My Wynder has stated on the record that the
Council is immune from liability for any denial.
4. The right to relocate utilities to a neighbors’ private property is not based on any
RPV policy, ordinance or state law.
5. The right to relocate utilities to a neighbors’ private property has never been
established by the Funiciellos or their attorney.
6. The right to use a City Utility Easement over HOA property is not transferable,
assignable, or subject to issuance of a permit to anyone, particularly the
Funiciellos, who are not a public utility.
7. Bo Ng, an SC Edison representative, stated repeatedly at the October 20, 2020
Council meeting that if it were up to SC Edison, SC Edison would not relocate the
utilities (proving beyond any doubt that there is no need or necessity to relocate the
utilities).
8. Even if the City itself desired to relocate the Funiciellos poles and utility lines onto
HOA property under the City easement, it is not permitted to do so because there is
no need. Use of an easement here requires necessity. The Funiciellos’ admitted
private beautification project is not a legal necessity and thus even if the
Funiciellos themselves were the owners of the utility easement, and they are not,
they could not relocate the poles and lines pursuant to the easement. Therefore,
they cannot obtain greater rights under the City easement then they would have
had under their own easement.
9. If granted, an Encroachment Permit is limited by the express language of the
Municipal Code to work on, above, or below Crest Road. No encroachment permit
extends onto adjacent property, the proposed location of the poles and lines once
the lines cross Crest Road.
3
10. The HOA will not allow the Funiciellos or their contractors to trespass onto HOA
property, and will not allow them to relocate any utilities or equipment onto HOA
private property.
11. The Conditions of the Crown Castle permit, particularly Condition 12, which
required restoration of the area to original condition, or better, have not been met.
Equity and Good Public Policy Favor Denial.
a. The Funicellos have provided no reason to grant the Encroachment Permit
other than:
i. They have allegedly spent years on obtaining the Permit.
ii. They have allegedly spent thousands on obtaining the Permit.
iii. They received vague promises that the Permit would be granted.
iv. Their property would be more beautiful and would increase in
value.
b. The HOA, on the other hand, argues for denial:
i. The Funicellos have not observed City rules or laws and have
ignored routine City processes, enabled by the City Staff and City
Attorney.
ii. The Funiciellos are not a utility company and cannot therefore
utilize a City utility easement.
iii. The Funiciellos have no legal right to relocate utilities onto HOA
private property. Neither they, nor SC Edison, have their own
easement over HOA property.
iv. There is no need or necessity to relocate the utilities, a requirement
to burden the servient tenement (the HOA property).
v. If the utilities are relocated onto HOA property, the HOA
homeowners’ property values will decrease while the Funiciellos’
property value will increase (which is why they desire to move the
lines and poles in the first place).
vi. The Funiciellos purchased their property with the clearly visible
utility burden. Relocating them to a neighbor’s property would
precipitate an all out war of burdened property owns paying to
remove their burden and place the burden elsewhere.
vii. The Funiciellos initiated the permit process by representing and
requesting that all utilities would be undergrounded.
viii. SC Edison prefers to leave the utilities in place on the Funiciellos’
property and states that there will be no net safety gain by any of the
proposed designs.
4
ix. Locating an ignition source into a grove of mature pine trees is an
act of reckless endangerment of life and property
x. Allowing the relocation would create a war between neighbors when
the newly burdened neighbor then requests returning the utilities
back to the original location.
xi. Granting the permit will establish a dangerous and unwise
precedent that will allow other residents burdened by utility poles to
relocate them onto their neighbor’s property.
xii. The Funiciellos have repeatedly violated the law. Here are few
examples:
1. Their contractors illegally worked on a Sunday.
2. Their contractors illegally removed 4 mature 40 year old
pine trees.
3. Their contractors illegally trenched on HOA property
without a permit or permission from the HOA or the City,
and the City collected a fine and stopped the work.
4. Their contractors illegally dug a trench on HOA property.
5. Their contractors illegally ran utility lines in the illegal
trench.
6. Their contractors illegally performed work Crest Road
without a valid permit, cutting through the pavement and
entering the utility vault that serves the City of Rolling Hills,
the FAA and the LA County Emergency Communications
system.
7. Their contractors, with Mr. Funiciello present, entered a
critical infrastructure utility vault without a permit.
Based on equity, comparing the arguments on both sides, the Encroachment
Permit should be denied.
5
Further Analysis
The only item before the Council is a singular Encroachment Permit.
An encroachment permit is limited to work performed on Crest Road per City Ordinance.
It is not a permit to build on HOA (or even other City) property. If granted, the EP does
not permit the Funiciellos the right to enter, trespass, or install or build on HOA property.
The City Attorney is wrong that the City owns a utility right-of-way or a fee interest
in the HOA property.
Easements are expressly limited to the stated purpose and are only for the stated party (the
City). This easement is limited to City use, and then only based on necessity. An
easement is incompatible with fee ownership and would be unnecessary if the City owned
the fee. There was no grant by the Developer or HOA to the City of any utility right-of-
way. The City Attorney has cited no legal authority for this legal theory.
The Funiciellos cannot use the City easement over HOA property. Neither can Edison,
who is acting merely as a private contractor and not as a public utility, and lacks its own
easement.
The Encroachment Permit is a discretionary permit.
Instead of utility poles and lines, consider whether the Funiciellos were asking Council to
permit them to relocate their septic tank or rusted old cars onto HOA property. No Council
would approve. It is no different here.
The Funiciellos are seeking to relocate a burden from their property onto HOA private
property. Why? The Funiciellos admit it is to beautify their property. Relocated, these
utilities will devalue HOA homeowners’ properties.
Funiciellos and their Contractors will not be permitted to enter HOA property or
trespass HOA property.
Whatever the Council decides on November 4, 2020 or later, the Funiciellos are not
requesting, and the City is not granting them, the right to access or to trespass onto HOA
property. The HOA, not the City, owns 100% of the fee interest south of Crest Road).
The HOA will take all steps necessary to prevent the Funiciellos or their contractors from
entering the HOA private property.
Any entry by the Funiciellos or their contractors will be treated as an act of trespass and
law enforcement will be called.
Impermissible Use of a Public Right of Way.
There are legal limits governing the permissible use of a public right of way:
a. The use must serve or be incidental to transportation of people
or goods, or serve public safety; [none present here for this
private beautification project];
6
b. The use must serve either a public interest or the private interest
of the underlying landowner that does not interfere with the
public’s use; [not present here, this is a private beautification
project and the HOA objects]; and
c. The use must not unduly danger or interfere with use of the
abutting property [not present here; in fact, the proposed use
CREATES a public safety hazard].
Constitutional Limits on Municipal Authority.
Exercise of the police power must be reasonably related to a legitimate government
purpose, with a reasonable basis in fact. Enabling a private beautification project
does not qualify. There is no governmental purpose.
Reasonable Alternatives:
Relocating all poles and lines underground on the Funiciellos’ Property: The
Funiciellos could relocate all the utilities underground on their own property for far less
money without City or HOA approval.
The Council Members should ask a salient question:
Why didn’t the Funiciellos simply place these lines underground on their own
property?
Relocating all poles and lines underground on HOA Property:
In its capacity as a good neighbor, the HOA will consider allowing the Funiciellos to
underground the utilities on HOA property if all utilities are placed underground and the
Funiciellos pay the entire costs of relocating the utilities.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The Council should reject the Staff recommendation to approve the encroachment permit.
The Council should exercise its discretion and deny the permit.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Katherine A. Campbell
.