CC SR 20210601 05 - Johnson Favaro Amendment No 3 Ladera Linda
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 06/01/2021
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to appropriate additional funding and approve a third
amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Johnson Favaro for the
Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Authorize an additional appropriation of $35,775 in support of the on-going
design effort for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project; and
(2) Authorize the Mayor to approve Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Services
Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Johnson Favaro for on-
going architectural and engineering design services for the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park Project thereby authorizing changes to the scope of
work that are needed to complete the additional necessary services at a new
contract sum of $597,035.
FISCAL IMPACT: Quimby funds will be used to complete this work.
Amount Budgeted: $624,143
Additional Appropriation: $35,775
Account Number(s): 334-400-8405-8004 [Quimby Fund – Ladera Linda/Design Services]
ORIGINATED BY: Ron Dragoo, PE, Principal Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Ramzi Awwad, Director of Public Works
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Amendment No. 3 to the Johnson Favaro Professional Services
Agreement (page A-1)
B. Proposal - Cost Estimate Update (page B-1)
C. Proposal - Enclosed Restroom revisions (page C-1)
D. Proposal - Security Consulting Services (page D-1)
E. Staff Report 05-18-2021 (page E-1)
F. Staff Report 04-06-2021 Page F-1)
1
G. Amendment No. 2 to the Johnson Favaro Professional Services
Agreement (page G-1)
H. Amendment No. 1 to the Johnson Favaro Professional Services
Agreement (page H-1)
I. 2018 Professional Services Agreement with Johnson Favaro (page I-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On December 18, 2018, the City Council approved the Professional Services
Agreement (PSA) with Johnson Favaro for architectural and engineering design
services for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project in the amount of
$538,460 (Attachment I).
On December 17, 2019, the City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to the PSA
thereby approving a one-year extension and increasing the contract amount by $14,740
for additional services (Attachment H). This increased the amount of the agreement to
$553,200.
On December 1, 2020, the City Council approved Amendment No. 2 to the Johnson
Favaro contract thereby extending the term by one additional year to allow sufficient
time to complete the CUP/CEQA process and the subsequent development of
construction-ready documents (Attachment G).
On April 6, 2021, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission-approved planning
entitlements (Attachment F). On May 18, 2021, the City Council approved a funding
strategy and approved proceeding with filing the necessary application with iBank for
the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project (Attachment E).
As the project moves forward with the development of construction documents,
additional professional services that are part of typical construction document
development, but are not included in the Johnson Favaro contract, are needed. Most of
these additional professional services will be in the form of sub-consultants to Johnson
Favaro, specializing in a particular aspect of design and construction document
development. Engaging these sub-consultants will require an amendment to the
Johnson Favaro contract. At this time, the costs associated with these services are
presented in the attached Amendment No. 3 to the PSA (Attachment A) and the
services are summarized as follows for the City Council’s consideration:
• Cost Estimate Update: the cost estimating format needs to be changed and in
response to requests from the community for a different format than is typically
used as part of plan development and updated to reflect the approved minor
modifications to the project design (Attachment B). The updated cost estimate
will be presented to the City Council at an upcoming meeting.
2
• Enclosed Restroom Revisions: these services are required to modify plan sheets
and specifications to change the open cabana restrooms to separate fully
enclosed Men’s and Women’s restrooms (Attachment C).
• Security Sub-Consulting Services: these services are required to provide
drawings and specifications for pole-mounted and building-mounted security
cameras and the associated system for the building and surrounding grounds
(Attachment D).
The cost to perform the cost estimate update, revisions to the enclosed restrooms, and
security sub-consulting services is $43,835. The project has over $8,000 available,
therefore, the additional appropriation request is only for $35,775, the balance of the
additional sub-consulting services.
Below is the Capital Improvement Program Project Summary Table for the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park Project:
Staff recommends approving Amendment No. 3 to the Johnson Favaro PSA so the
additional necessary services can be completed.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Staff that there may be some additional requests for contract amendments and new
contracts to further progress this project. Anticipated upcoming amendments over the
next several weeks include dry utility sub-consulting services, information technology,
audio-visual sub-consulting services, and an overall project management contract.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Do not approve the changes in scope and additional spending
authorization with Johnson Favaro.
3
2. Take other action as deemed appropriate by the City Council.
4
AMENDMENT NO. 3
TO AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
(Amendment No. 3) by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES (City) and
JOHNSON FAVARO, a California corporation (“Consultant”) is effective as of June 1, 2021.
RECITALS
A. City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement for Contractual Services
dated December 18, 2018 (Agreement) whereby Consultant agreed to provide engineering design
services for the Ladera Linda Community Park Project (the Services) for a Term of one year, for
a Contract Sum of $538,460. The Agreement provided for an additional one-year extension at the
City’s discretion.
B. Due to the unforeseen necessity for Conditional Use Permit review and California
Environmental Quality Act review by Consultant, the Services required additional tasks and would
take longer than anticipated. Therefore, on December 17, 2019, the City and Consultant entered
into the Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement to extend the Term of the Agreement by one year, to
expire on December 18, 2020, and to increase the Contract Sum to $553,200.
C. Due to delays resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, additional time was
required to complete the Services contemplated in the Agreement and in Amendment No. 1.
Therefore, the City and Consultant again amended the Agreement to extend the Term to December
18, 2021 (Amendment No. 2).
D. City and Consultant desire to further amend the Agreement, as amended, to add the
following services: (i) cost estimate update and reformatting; (ii) revisions to the design for the
enclosed restrooms; and (iii) security consulting services. The additional services shall increase
the compensation by $43,835 for a new Contract Sum of $597,035.
TERMS
1. Contract Changes. The Agreement is amended as provided herein. Deleted text is
indicated in strikethrough and added text in bold italics.
(a) Section 2.1, Contract Sum, is amended to read:
“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 $553,200 (Five Hundred Thirty Three Thousand Two Hundred
Dollars)$597,035 (Five Hundred Ninety Seven Thousand Thirty Five
Dollars) (the “Contract Sum”), unless additional compensation is approved
pursuant to Section 1.9.”
A-1
01203.0006/718260.2 -2-
(b) Section I.C.18 to Exhibit “A,” Schedule of Services, is added to
read:
“18. Additional Services Pursuant to Amendment No. 3:
a. Cost estimate update and reformatting (subconsultant: MGAC)
i. Provide an updated and reformatted cost estimate to reflect minor
scope and design modifications and clarifications, current unit
pricing and market conditions, and revised construction schedule.
ii. Provide separate cost report documents with cost breakdown as
per the City notes received April 16, 2021
iii. Provide a full project breakdown inclusive of construction hard
costs and project soft costs, based on traditional design-bid-build
procurement.
iv. Attend two virtual meetings with the City to present and review the
updated cost report.
b. Revisions to enclosed restroom design (subconsultants: Novus (MEP,
Darkhorse Lighworks (Lighting)). Change from open cabana
restrooms to separate fully enclosed men’s and women’s restrooms.
MEP Scope of Work
Mechanical
- Revise duct distribution layout and duct sizes. M2.01
Mechanical First Floor Plan.
- Revise restroom exhaust fan size. M0.11 Mechanical
Schedules.
Electrical
- Revise power design for additional water heaters at each
enclosed restroom. E2.01 Electrical First Floor Power Plan.
- Revise electrical calculations and riser diagram. E6.00 Single
Line Diagram.
Plumbing
- Revise plumbing design for restroom. P3.00 Enlarged plan
- Revise water heater design for each restroom. P2.01 Plumbing
First Floor Plan
A-2
01203.0006/718260.2 -3-
(c) Exhibit “A-1”, Scope of Work for Security Consulting Services
Pursuant to Amendment No. 3, attached hereto, is added to the Agreement.
(d) Exhibit “C-2”, Schedule of Compensation for Additional Work
Pursuant to Amendment No. 3, attached hereto, is added to the Agreement.
(e) The following is added to at the bottom of Section I of Exhibit “D,”
Schedule of Performance, as provided in Amendment No. 2:
“All Additional Services provided in Amendment No. 3 shall be subject to
the above Schedule of Performance.”
2. Continuing Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by Amendment Nos. 1
through 3, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
From and after the date of this Amendment No. 2, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the
Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement, as amended by Amendment Nos. 1 through 3.
3. Affirmation of Agreement; Warranty Re Absence of Defaults. City and
Consultant each ratify and reaffirm each and every one of the respective rights and obligations
arising under the Agreement. Each party represents and warrants to the other that there have been
no written or oral modifications to the Agreement other than as provided herein. Each party
represents and warrants to the other that the Agreement is currently an effective, valid, and binding
obligation.
Consultant represents and warrants to City that, as of the date of this Amendment No. 3,
City is not in default of any material term of the Agreement and that there have been no events
that, with the passing of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a material default
under the Agreement.
City represents and warrants to Consultant that, as of the date of this Amendment No. 3,
Consultant is not in default of any material term of the Agreement and that there have been no
events that, with the passing of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a material
default under the Agreement.
4. Adequate Consideration. The parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that
they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the
obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment No. 3.
5. Authority. The persons executing this Amendment No. 3 on behalf of the parties
hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to
execute and deliver this Amendment No. 3 on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this
Amendment No. 3, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Amendment No. 3, and
(iv) the entering into this Amendment No. 3 does not violate any provision of any other agreement
to which said party is bound.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
A-3
01203.0006/718260.2 -4-
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
____________________________________
Eric Alegria, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Teri Takaoka, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
_________________________________
William W. Wynder, City Attorney
CONSULTANT:
JOHNSON FAVARO, a California
corporation
By: ________________________________
Name: Jim Favaro
Title: Principal
By: ________________________________
Name: Steve Johnson
Title: Principal
Address: 5898 Blackwelder Street
Culver City, CA 90232
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.
A-4
01203.0006/718260.2
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On __________, 2021 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.
A-5
01203.0006/718260.2
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On __________, 2021 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.
A-6
01203.0006/718260.2
EXHIBIT “A-1”
SCOPE OF WORK
FOR SECURITY CONSULTING SERVICES PURSUANT TO AMENDMENT NO. 3
A. SCHEMATIC DESIGN / DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE
This phase incorporates a preliminary effort to identify the design concept to ultimately
arrive at the acceptable starting point. The tasks are as follows:
1. SC&D will review any changes to renderings produced by the City since our last
review to confirm the scope of work involved.
2. Initially attend a conference call with the City via a Go-To-Meeting to discuss the
overall design concept for acceptance.
3. SC&D shall produce a Basis of Design Short Narrative (BODSN) that will
include recommendations for a security system program, reduced plans depicting
the location of devices, and a probable project cost analysis. SC&D will submit
the narrative to the City for internal review. The narrative at a minimum will
include:
A brief explanation of the security system.
The general location of equipment.
A single probable project budget.
B. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE
This phase constitutes the final design effort. Documents produced during this phase
will be used by the awarding contractor for bid purposes and will include details necessary for
construction. We anticipate 50%, 90%, and 100% deliverables for this phase. The tasks outlined
below are inclusive in each deliverable unless otherwise noted.
1. Prepare and submit one copy of design drawings in CAD and PDF format for the
security system per submission for a total of three submissions containing CAD
files provided by the City. The drawings will consist of floor plans depicting the
location, or relocation of control panels, field devices, riser locations, mounting
details, required building power locations, and revised general notes. The
drawings will include system block diagram.
2. At 100%, revise and resubmit the previously submitted probable project budget.
3. At 100%, prepare and submit one copy of a security specification in Word and
PDF formats.
4. Attend further conference calls and Go-To-Meetings, as necessary.
A-7
01203.0006/718260.2
C. BIDDING PHASE
This phase shall include the response to comments and RFI’s issued by City and other
Stakeholders and shall include:
1. Up to five (5) responses to Requests for Information (RFI).
2. Attend conference calls and Go-To-Meetings, as necessary.
D. CLARIFICATIONS
City will arrange meetings and required conference calls.
Ctiy will provide CAD files for submission
A-8
01203.0006/718260.2
EXHIBIT “C-2”
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
FOR SERVICES PURSUANT TO AMENDMENT NO. 3
Consultant will provide the Additional Services pursuant to Exhibit “A-1” at the following
rates:
COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES COST SUBTOTALS
Cost Estimate Update and Reformatting
MGAC (see below for fee detail) $14,500
Consultant $2,153
Subtotal $16,653
Enclosed Restroom Revisions
Consultant $5,340
Novus (MEP) (see below for fee detail) $2,035
Darkhorse Lightworks (Lighting) (see below for fee
detail)
$1,520
Subtotal $8,895
Security Consulting Services
Consultant $4,360
Design, Construction Documents, Bidding (see fee
detail below)
$14,700
Subtotal $18,287
TOTAL FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES $43,835
**Fee details on following pages
A-9
01203.0006/718260.2
I. Cost Estimate Update and Reformatting Fee Detail
MGAC ARCHITECTURE FEE SUMMARY DETAIL
JOHNSON FAVARO - ARCHITECTURE
TASK STAFF RATE HOURS TOTAL
Meeting with City to discuss format of estimate
Principal
$216.72 1 $216.72
Senior Staff 4 $115.58 1 $115.58
SUBTOTAL $332.30
Redlining of drawings for Cost Consultant to describe updates to
the set
Principal
$216.72 1 $216.72
Senior Staff 4
$115.58
5.25
$606.80
SUBTOTAL $823.52
Meeting with Cost Consultant to review updates to drawings
Principal $216.72 1 $216.72
Senior Staff 4 $115.58 1 $115.58
SUBTOTAL $332.30
2 meetings with City to present and review cost estimate
Principal $216.72 2 $433.44
Senior Staff 4
$115.58
2
$231.16
SUBTOTAL $664.60
TOTAL $2,153
A-10
01203.0006/718260.2
II. Enclosed Restroom Revisions Fee Details
Consultant Architectural FEE SUMMARY DETAIL
TASK STAFF RATE HOURS TOTAL
Revised fixture calculations,
Revised Revit plan and area plan
Number of sheets affected: 2
Partner $220.00 0 $0.00
Senior Associate $180.00 8 $1,440.0
0
SUBTOTAL $1,440.0
0
Revision to Exterior and Interior
Elevations, Building Section, Finish
floor plan, Enlarged floor plans,
RCPs, Material schedule,
Door Schedule. Consultant
Coordination
Number of sheets affected: 10
Partner
$220.00 1 $220.00
Senior Associate
$180.00
16
$2,880.0
0
SUBTOTAL $3,100.0
0
City Review Meetings and final
revisions
Partner $220.00 2 $440.00
Senior Associate $180.00 2 $360.00
SUBTOTAL $800.00
TOTAL $5,340
A-11
01203.0006/718260.2
MEP FEE SUMMARY DETAIL (Novus)
TASK STAFF RATE HOURS TOTAL
Mechanical Revisions
Number of sheets affected: 2
Senior Engineer
$135.00 1 $135.00
BIM Designer $115.00 3 $345.00
SUBTOT
AL
$480.00
Electrical Revisions
Number of sheets affected: 2
Senior Engineer
$135.00 1 $135.00
BIM Designer
$115.00
4
$460.00
SUBTOT
AL
$595.00
Plumbing Revisions
Number of sheets affected: 2
Senior Engineer $135.00 2 $270.00
BIM Designer $115.00 6 $690.00
SUBTOTAL $960.00
TOTAL $2,035
Lighting FEE SUMMARY DETAIL (Darkhorse Lightworks)
TASK STAFF RATE HOURS TOTAL
Lighting Revisions
Number of sheets affected: 3, plan/RCP,
elevation or detailing, specifications and
photometric analysis
Senior
Staff
$190.00 3 $570.00
Number of sheets affected: 4, plan/RCP,
elevation or detail, specifications, controls,
photometric analysis
Senior
Staff
$190.00 5 $950.00
Staff 0 $0.00
SUBTOTA
L
$1,520.00
TOTAL $1,520
A-12
01203.0006/718260.2
III. Security Consulting Services Fee Details
Secure Consulting and Design
Phase Fee
Schematic Design / Design Development Phase $1,688
Construction Document Phase – 50% $4,156
Construction Document Phase – 90% $3,324
Construction Document Phase – 100% $4,780
Bidding Phase $752
Total Fee: $14,700
A-13
April 20, 2021
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Project: Ladera Linda Community Center and Park
RE: Additional Services Proposal: DD Cost Estimate Update
Dear Mr. Waters,
The following describes additional services to be provided by Johnson Favaro
(Consultant) to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Owner), in accordance with our
professional services agreement approved by City Council on December 18, 2018
and subsequently entered into agreement on January 22, 2019 in connection with
the project referenced above.
ADD SERVICE DESCRIPTION
1) Provide an updated DD cost estimate to reflect minor scope and design
modifications and clarifications, current unit pricing and market conditions, and
revised construction schedule.
2) Provide separate cost report documents with cost breakdown as per the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes notes received April 16, 2021
3) Provide a full project breakdown inclusive of construction hard costs and
project soft costs, based on traditional design-bid-build procurement.
4) Attend two virtual meetings with the City to present and review the updated
cost report.
MGAC $14,500
Johnson Favaro $2,153
Total $16,653
B-1
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY CENTER AND PARK – ADD SERVICES FOR SECURITY AND AUDIOVISUAL/COMMUNICATIONS
OCTOBER 10, 2019
FEE PROPOSAL:
Based on the Scope of Services described above, the Consultant proposes a fixed
fee of:
SIXTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY THREE DOLLARS AND ZERO
CENTS ($16,653)
See Exhibit “A” for sub-consultant proposal and JF fee detail
CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement correctly sets out the scope and fees for services to be provided
by Johnson Favaro for this project.
Signature of Authorized City Officer
________________________________________________________________
Name Title of Authorized City Officer
__________________________________________________________________
Date
Signature of Authorized Johnson Favaro Principal
STEVE JOHNSON
______________________________________________________________
Name Title of Authorized Johnson Favaro Principal
__________________________________________________________________
Date
B-2
B-3
B-4
TASK STAFF RATE HOURS TOTAL
Meeting with RPV to discuss format of estimate
Principal $216.72 1 $216.72
Senior Staff 4 $115.58 1 $115.58
SUBTOTAL $332.30
Redlining of drawings for Cost Consultant to describe updates to
the set since DD
Principal $216.72 1 $216.72
Senior Staff 4 $115.58 5.25 $606.80
SUBTOTAL $823.52
Meeting with Cost Consultant to review updates to drawings since
DD
Principal $216.72 1 $216.72
Senior Staff 4 $115.58 1 $115.58
SUBTOTAL $332.30
2 meetings with client to present and review Cost estimate
Principal $216.72 2 $433.44
Senior Staff 4 $115.58 2 $231.16
SUBTOTAL $664.60
$2,153TOTAL
JOHNSON FAVARO - ARCHITECTURE
EXHIBIT "A" ARCHITECTURE (JF) FEE SUMMARY DETAIL
FEE SUMMARY DETAIL
Ladera Linda Community Center
Rancho Palos Verdes
ADDITIONAL SERVICES: Additional DD estimate
B-5
April 29, 2021
Ramzi Awwad
Director of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Project: Ladera Linda Community Center and Park
RE: Additional Services Proposal: Enclosed Restroom revisions
Dear Mr. Awwad,
The following describes additional services to be provided by Johnson Favaro
(Consultant) to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Owner), in accordance with our
professional services agreement approved by City Council on December 18, 2018
and subsequently entered into agreement on January 22, 2019 in connection with
the project referenced above.
ADD SERVICE DESCRIPTION
1) Change from open cabana restrooms to separate fully enclosed Mens and
Womens restrooms
This proposal covers Architectural, MEP, and Lighting services required for the
revision.
Johnson Favaro (Consultant) $5340
Novus (MEP Subconsultant) $2035
Darkhorse Lightworks (Lighting Subconsultant) $1520
Total $8895
FEE PROPOSAL:
Based on the Scope of Services described above, the Consultant proposes a fixed
fee of:
EIGHT THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY FIVE DOLLARS AND ZERO
CENTS ($8895)
C-1
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY CENTER AND PARK – ADD SERVICES FOR SECURITY
See Exhibit “A” for fee details.
CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement correctly sets out the scope and fees for services to be provided
by Johnson Favaro for this project.
Signature of Authorized City Officer
________________________________________________________________
Name Title of Authorized City Officer
__________________________________________________________________
Date
Signature of Authorized Johnson Favaro Principal
STEVE JOHNSON
______________________________________________________________
Name Title of Authorized Johnson Favaro Principal
__________________________________________________________________
Date
C-2
TASK STAFF RATE HOURS TOTAL
Revised fixture calculations, Revised Revit plan and area plan
Partner $220.00 0 $0.00
Senior Associate $180.00 8 $1,440.00
SUBTOTAL $1,440.00
Revision to Exterior and Interior Elevations, Building Section,
Finish floor plan, Enlarged floor plans, RCPs, Material schedule,
Door Schedule. Consultant Coordination
Partner $220.00 1 $220.00
Senior Associate $180.00 16 $2,880.00
SUBTOTAL $3,100.00
Client Review Meetings and final revisions
Partner $220.00 2 $440.00
Senior Associate $180.00 2 $360.00
SUBTOTAL $800.00
$5,340TOTAL
EXHIBIT "A" Architectural FEE SUMMARY DETAIL
FEE SUMMARY DETAIL
Number of sheets affected: 2
Ladera Linda Community Center
Rancho Palos Verdes
ADDITIONAL SERVICES: Enclosed Restrooms
Number of sheets affected: 10
C-3
TASK STAFF RATE HOURS TOTAL
Mechanical Revisions
Senior Engineer $135.00 1 $135.00
BIM Designer $115.00 3 $345.00
SUBTOTAL $480.00
Electrical Revisions
Senior Engineer $135.00 1 $135.00
BIM Designer $115.00 4 $460.00
SUBTOTAL $595.00
Plumbing Revisions
Senior Engineer $135.00 2 $270.00
BIM Designer $115.00 6 $690.00
SUBTOTAL $960.00
$2,035
Number of sheets affected: 2
TOTAL
EXHIBIT "A" MEP FEE SUMMARY DETAIL
FEE SUMMARY DETAIL
Number of sheets affected: 2
Ladera Linda Community Center
Rancho Palos Verdes
ADDITIONAL SERVICES: Enclosed Restrooms
Number of sheets affected: 2
C-4
Page 1 of 1 NOVUS DESIGN STUDIO
ASR#1 - Ladera Linda Community Center
____________________________________________________________________________
PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES
Client Johnson Favaro Architecture + Urban Design
Attn: Ingrid Dennert
Project Ladera Linda Community Center
MEP ASR#1 – Enclosed Restrooms
Number P2018-41.1
Date 4/27/2021
Scope of Services
Per the request of the architect, we have developed the scope of work for modifications to the restroom layouts. The DD phase restroom
layout will change to fully enclosed male and female restrooms.
MEP Scope of Work
Mechanical
- Revise duct distribution layout and duct sizes. M2.01 Mechanical First Floor Plan.
- Revise restroom exhaust fan size. M0.11 Mechanical Schedules.
Electrical
- Revise power design for additional water heaters at each enclosed restroom. E2.01 Electrical First Floor Power Plan.
- Revise electrical calculations and riser diagram. E6.00 Single Line Diagram.
Plumbing
- Revise plumbing design for restroom. P3.00 Enlarged plan
- Revise water heater design for each restroom. P2.01 Plumbing First Floor Plan
Fixed Fee
$2,035
Terms and Conditions
• Terms and Conditions are per our approved contract for the base project dated 06.11.2019
• No deliverable items will be provided on this project before a valid contract is executed by both parties.
• Scope, Fees, and Terms and Conditions outlined here are valid for 30 days
• Reimbursable costs such as travel expenses to indicated meetings, drawing reproduction and printing, will be billed at cost
• Services will be provided on a Fixed Fee basis, billed monthly
Exclusions
• Exclusions per our approved contract for the base project dated 06.11.2019
C-5
TASK STAFF RATE HOURS TOTAL
Lighting Revisions
Number of sheets affected: 3, plan/RCP, elevation or detailing,
specifications and photometric analysis Senior Staff $190.00 3 $570.00
Senior Staff $190.00 5 $950.00
Staff 0 $0.00
SUBTOTAL $1,520.00
$1,520TOTAL
EXHIBIT "A" Lighting FEE SUMMARY DETAIL
FEE SUMMARY DETAIL
Number of sheets affected: 4, plan/RCP, elevation or detail,
specifications, controls, photometric analysis
Ladera Linda Community Center
Rancho Palos Verdes
ADDITIONAL SERVICES: Enclosed Restrooms
C-6
April 22, 2021
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Project: Ladera Linda Community Center and Park
RE: Additional Services Proposal: Security Consulting Services
Dear Mr. Waters,
The following describes additional services to be provided by Johnson Favaro
(Consultant) to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Owner), in accordance with our
professional services agreement approved by City Council on December 18, 2018
and subsequently entered into agreement on January 22, 2019 in connection with
the project referenced above.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1) Security Consulting Services
This proposal covers services of the subconsultant from schematic design through
to Closeout/Warranty. Johnson Favaro will be responsible for coordination of
subconsultant.
See below for a detail of hours projected by Consultant to complete documentation
of requested additional project scope:
Johnson Favaro (Consultant) $4,360
Secure Consulting and Design (Subconsultant) $17,868
Total $22,228
FEE PROPOSAL:
Based on the Scope of Services described above, the Consultant proposes a fixed
fee of:
TWENTY TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT DOLLARS AND
ZERO CENTS ($22,228)
$14,700
Awwad
Ramzi Awwad
Director of Public Works
May 25, 2021
$3,587
$18,287
Bidding Phase.
EIGHTEEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN DOLLARS AND ZERO
CENTS
D-1
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY CENTER AND PARK – ADD SERVICES FOR SECURITY
See Exhibit “A” for sub-consultant proposal.
CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement correctly sets out the scope and fees for services to be provided
by Johnson Favaro for this project.
Signature of Authorized City Officer
________________________________________________________________
Name Title of Authorized City Officer
__________________________________________________________________
Date
Signature of Authorized Johnson Favaro Principal
STEVE JOHNSON
______________________________________________________________
Name Title of Authorized Johnson Favaro Principal
__________________________________________________________________
Date
D-2
TASK STAFF RATE HOURS TOTAL
Design Phase
Principal $216.72 5 $1,083.60
Senior Staff 4 $115.58 15 $1,733.70
SUBTOTAL $2,817
Design meeting with RPV
Principal $216.72 2 $433.44
Senior Staff 4 $115.58 3 $346.74
SUBTOTAL $780
$3,597TOTAL
JOHNSON FAVARO - ARCHITECTURE
EXHIBIT "A" ARCHITECTURE (JF) FEE SUMMARY DETAIL
FEE SUMMARY DETAIL
Coordination of security camera locations at ceilings and exterior
walls/soffits and within site, Update of door schedule to note contacts,
Coordination of site lighting with site cameras. Coordination of access
control with gate design.
Ladera Linda Community Center
Rancho Palos Verdes
ADDITIONAL SERVICES: Security Add service
Prep, Meeting, and minutes
D-3
Security ■ Fire ■ Intercom ■ Emergency Telephone Systems
2484 Ashen Light Drive, Henderson, NV 89044, Phone (714) 318-4771
drgallegos@secureconsultingdesign.com
September 12, 2019
Revised: September 25, 2019
Revised: April 21, 2021
Revised: April 22, 2021
Via Email: idennert@johnsonfavaro.com
Ms. Ingrid Dennert
Johnson Favaro
Architecture + Urban Design
5898 Blackwelder Street
Culver City, CA 90232
RE: Proposal to Provide Security Consulting and Design Services
For the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center - Security System
Rancho Palos Verdes, California
SC&D Proposal No. 119002-00
Dear Ingrid,
Secure Consulting & Design (SC&D) is pleased to submit this proposal to provide security consulting
services to Johnson Favaro (Client) for the above referenced project.
INTRODUCTION
Ladera Linda Park is an 11-acre neighborhood park located on Forrestal Drive. Accounting for steep
hillsides, the park has only 5.5 acres of usable park space. The project includes a new Community Center
building, totaling 5,730 SF (enclosed/conditioned floor area – circulation for the building is covered and
not conditioned). The new community center building includes four classrooms and 1 meeting room that
will also be used for orientation/educational programming associated with the adjoining preserve. The
project also includes redevelopment of the park, with the primary focus of restoring most of the site to the
natural landscape native to the peninsula – low chaparral and trails. No new program uses are proposed
in the park as compared to existing, which includes an open field for informal play/recreation, a children’s
playground, a basketball court and a paddle tennis/pickle ball court. Parking for the site is provided in a
new surface lot for 54 cars.
BASIC SERVICES
For this proposal we will assume to provide drawings and specification for pole-mounted/building-mounted
security cameras and system for the building and the surrounding grounds. We will include an intrusion
system with alarm points such as door alarms, interior motion sensors and glass break sensors. Included
will be a possible access control system. Further services will include single on-site meeting with the client
and city officials with key Go-To-Meetings with the design team to develop and coordinate design with the
client and other consultants. We will prepare drawings, specifications and a short narrative for client use
only to assist with development of estimated construction cost for this portion of the work.
EXHIBIT "A"
D-4
Ladera Linda Park and Community Center - Security System Revised: April 22, 2021
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 2 119002-00
SCHEMATIC DESIGN / DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE
This phase incorporates a preliminary effort to identify the design concept to ultimately arrive at the
acceptable starting point. The tasks are as follows:
1. SC&D will review any changes to renderings produced by the client since our last review to confirm
the scope of work involved.
2. Initially attend a conference call with the client via a Go-To-Meeting to discuss the overall design
concept for acceptance.
3. SC&D shall produce a Basis of Design Short Narrative (BODSN) that will include recommendations
for a security system program, reduced plans depicting the location of devices, and a probable
project cost analysis. SC&D will submit the narrative to the Client for internal review. The narrative
at a minimum will include:
A brief explanation of the security system.
The general location of equipment.
A single probable project budget.
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE
This phase constitutes the final design effort. Documents produced during this phase will be used by the
awarding contractor for bid purposes and will include details necessary for construction. We anticipate
50%, 90%, and 100% deliverables for this phase. The tasks outlined below are inclusive in each
deliverable unless otherwise noted.
1. Prepare and submit one copy of design drawings in CAD and PDF format for the security system
per submission for a total of three submissions containing CAD files provided by the Client. The
drawings will consist of floor plans depicting the location, or relocation of control panels, field devices,
riser locations, mounting details, required building power locations, and revised general notes. The
drawings will include system block diagram.
2. At 100%, revise and resubmit the previously submitted probable project budget.
3. At 100%, prepare and submit one copy of a security specification in Word and PDF formats.
4. Attend further conference calls and Go-To-Meetings, as necessary.
BIDDING PHASE
This phase shall include the response to comments and RFI’s issued by Client and other Stakeholders
and shall include:
1. Up to five (5) responses to Requests for Information (RFI).
2. Attend conference calls and Go-To-Meetings, as necessary.
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION PHASE
This phase shall include Responses to RFI’s and site visits to ensure compliance to Contract Documents.
The tasks are as follows:
1. Up to five (5) responses to Requests for Information (RFI).
2. Perform two on-site visits to confirm compliance with Contract Documents. Prepare a site visit report
on the progress being made to include a punch list of items needing correction.
3. Attend conference calls and Go-To-Meetings, as necessary.
CLOSE OUT / WARRANTY PHASE
1. Review Contractor supplied security documents issued for compliance to Contract Documents for
completeness.
D-5
Ladera Linda Park and Community Center - Security System Revised: April 22, 2021
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 3 119002-00
CLARIFICATIONS
The Client will arrange meetings and required conference calls.
The Client will provide CAD files per submission.
PROFESSIONAL FEE
SC&D will provide Basic Services on a fixed fee basis, which includes Reimbursable Expenses. The fee
for Basic Services is as follows:
Phase Fee
Schematic Design / Design Development Phase $1,688
Construction Document Phase – 50%$4,156
Construction Document Phase – 90%$3,324
Construction Document Phase – 100%$4,780
Bidding Phase $752
Construction Administration Phase $2,416
Close Out / Warranty Phase $752
Total Fee:$17,868
The fee for Basic Services does not include Additional Services described herein. SC&D’s fees shall be
paid monthly in proportion to services performed.
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
Reimbursable Expenses are included in the base bid.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
This proposal contemplates a scope of service based upon one project scheme. Major revisions outside
SC&D's control or responsibility that will require rework of contemplated work or more extensive work than
originally agreed upon will be considered Additional Services.
Additional Services also includes all work (such as additional consultation, meetings or revisions) not
outlined in Basic Services.
Additional services, excluded from the Basic Services, include but are not limited to the following:
Additional Meetings.
Additional Design Phases.
Additional Construction Phases.
Additional Construction Drawings.
Production of shop or coordination drawings (other than that specified).
Development of alternate means of methods of design/construction equivalencies.
By extension, the design or expansion of security apparatus beyond the confines of the project
limitations.
Additional Services will not be performed unless authorized or requested by the Client.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
In order for us to perform this work, the Client shall provide SC&D complete information about the project
including current design CAD files, prints, specifications, etc. and advise the Consultant of any changes
affecting his work as soon as possible upon consideration of the changes.
SC&D is not responsible for errors and omissions in drawings and/or data provided by the Owner,
occupant, architect or other consultants for inclusion in the construction documents. Invoices will be
prepared in accordance with work performed.
$14,700
D-6
Ladera Linda Park and Community Center - Security System Revised: April 22, 2021
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 4 119002-00
Should this project be delayed for a period of six months or longer, SC&D reserves the right to modify this
proposal to reflect any changes or rework that result from such a period of inactivity. Any changes would
be treated as an additional service.
SC&D warrants his services under this proposal to be exercised in a manner consistent with that level of
care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the SC&D’s profession currently practicing in his locality
under similar conditions. No other warranty, either expressed or implied as to the results to be achieved
because of this project, is made.
SC&D’s liability to the Client relating to this agreement or to SC&D’s services under this agreement, except
in cases of gross negligence, shall not exceed the aggregate of SC&D’s total fee for services under this
agreement.
SC&D’s shall provide professional liability insurance coverage as dictated by the general terms the Client
has accepted per their contract agreement with the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
SC&D shall have no responsibility for the discovery, presence, handling, removal or disposal of
or exposure of persons to hazardous materials in any form at the project site(s), including but not
limited to asbestos, asbestos products, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) or other toxic substances.
This agreement may be accepted by signing in the space below and returning a countersigned copy of
this agreement, or by authorizing, directing or permitting Secure Consulting & Design to proceed with the
Scope of Services.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
SUBMITTED BY:
SECURE CONSULTING & DESIGN
David Gallegos
Consultant/Designer
ACCEPTED BY:
JOHNSON FAVARO ARCHITECTS
Name (signature)
Name (print/type)
Title
Date
D-7
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 05/18/2021
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to identify a financing option for the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park Project.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS:
1. Based on a traditional procurement approach, review the financing option
recommended by the Finance Advisory Committee for the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park Project using the following combined funding
sources:
a. 50% of the American Rescue Plan Act;
b. Available funds in the Quimby Fund;
c. A 50/50 split between financing with iBank and the Capital Infrastructure
Program Fund Reserve; and,
d. Create a framework to replenish CIP Fund with interest earnings, additional
transfers from the General Fund when there is a surplus, and private
funding such as donations and capital fundraisers.
2. If acceptable, affirm the FAC’s recommendation and direct Staff to proceed with
filing the necessary application with iBank.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Trang Nguyen, Director of Finance
REVIEWED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. CIP Fund Forecasts (page A-1)
B. Sample iBank Amortization Schedule (page B-1)
C. April 22, 2021 Finance Advisory Committee staff report (page C-1)
D. May 6, 2021 Finance Advisory Committee staff report (page D-1)
E. Public comments received by May 11, 2021 (page E-1)
E-1
BACKGROUND:
On April 6, 2021, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of the
Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project. The summary of the approval are as
follows:
• Adopted Resolution No. 2021-13 upholding the Planning Commission-
approved planning entitlements, with conditions of approval, consisting of
Conditional Use Permit, Major Grading Permit, Variance and Site Plan Review
application findings (planning entitlements), thereby approving the project with
certain modifications to the conditions.
• Directed Staff to proceed with the completion of construction documents and
authorize advertisement of bids upon final completion of plans and
specifications for the project.
• Directed Staff to relocate and optimize handicap parking spaces closer to the
building and explore the cost and effective ways to install exterior shutters
over glass surfaces to provide the necessary security.
Based on the City Council’s directives on the project, which was estimated to cost
approximately $15.7 million at the April 6 meeting, potential financing options were
presented to the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) at a special meeting on April 22,
2021 (Attachment C). At the conclusion of the meeting, FAC formed two Subcommittees
to review (1) financing options and (2) operating financial impacts of the new facility.
The Subcommittee Members for the financing options are Vice Chair Lewis and
Members MacAllister and Yourman. The Subcommittee for the operating financial
impacts is comprised of Members Vlaco and Seal.
On May 6, 2021, the financing options Subcommittee presented its recommendations to
the larger FAC, which, after considering the information presented, voted unanimously
to forward the following recommendation to the City Council:
• Use up to 50% of the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for the
project. Currently estimated at $3.9 million.
• Use any available funding from the Quimby Fund for the project. Currently
estimated at $943,500.
• For the remaining balance of the Project cost, fund the difference between a loan
and the Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) Fund reserve, as follows:
o Use iBank to finance the remaining 50% of the project cost, after the use of
ARPA and the Quimby Fund, with a term of 10 years. Currently, the estimated
financing amount is $5.5 million or 35% of the total estimated project cost as
reported on April 6.
o Use reserves from the CIP Fund to fund the remaining 50% of the project
cost. Currently, it is estimated that $5.3 million or 34% of the total estimated
project cost, as reported on April 6, would be needed.
E-2
• Create a framework to replenish the CIP Fund with interest earnings, additional
transfers from the General Fund when there is a surplus, and private funding
such as donations and capital fundraisers.
The above recommendation from FAC ensures that construction of the project will not
result in any tax increase to residents and that projects identified in the 5 -year CIP
continue to be funded based on the City’s current practice of using transient occupancy
tax (TOT) generated by Terranea and restricted funds.
At the same meeting, the operating financial impacts Subcommittee also reported that it
met with Finance Director Nguyen, Recreation and Parks Deputy Director Trautner, and
Recreation and Parks Senior Administrative Analyst Waters to discuss the project’s
operating revenues and expenditures after construction is completed. The discussion
that ensued with the Subcommittee revealed that it is too early and there is not enough
data or information to make any assumptions of the operating impacts of the new
facility. Therefore, the FAC recommended, as part of the next fiscal year workplan, that
the Subcommittee continue to analyze the operational, financial impacts of the project.
DISCUSSION:
Project Procurement
During the April 22, 2021, FAC special meeting, Staff reiterated to the FAC the following
three procurement options that were previously presented by Kosmont Transaction
Services (KTS) at the February 25 meeting:
• Traditional (design-bid-build)
o The City’s responsibility is from start to finish of the project.
o Requires bidding out most components of the project.
o May take longer to complete.
o Flexible financing options.
• Total Project Delivery
o The City is not responsible for the project installation.
o Guaranteed delivery.
o Limited to lease payment.
• Design-Build
o The City’s responsibility is from start to finish of the project.
o One contractor to design and build.
o Streamline the process to reduce the time to complete.
o Flexible financing options.
At the April 22 meeting, the FAC was informed that the City is too far along the design
process that the options of design-build and total project delivery are no longer viable.
Therefore, the only procurement option the City has at this point is the tradi tional
E-3
approach (design-bid-build). The FAC agreed with the recommendation and did not
discuss the procurement option at the subcommittee meeting or at the May 6 follow-up
meeting.
Financing Options
At the April 22 meeting, Staff also reintroduced the following four financing options that
KTS previously presented at the February 25 meeting:
• Current Resources
o Cash reserves
o Grants
o Special revenues
• Issue Securities
o Loan
o General Obligation Bonds – requires an affirmative vote of 2/3 of registered
voters
o Lease Revenue Bonds – no voter requirement
• Lease
o Direct Lease – non-tax exempt, term of less than 30 years
o Total Project Delivery – tax-exempt, 30-year term
During the discussion, FAC suggested a fifth option of private funding, such as
donations and capital campaign fundraising. Staff and a couple of FAC members
indicated that it is too late in the process to consider private funding as a financing
option for the project. However, the FAC feels that private funding should be considered
to try to replenish the CIP Fund Reserves used for the project.
After discussion ensued at the May 6 meeting, FAC agreed to finance the project from a
combination of restricted funds, CIP Fund, and loan. The Committee agreed that the
use of restricted funds for the project should be considered before using the CIP Fund
and loan. FAC also noted that the balance of the total cost of the project, after the use
of ARPA and Quimby Fund, should be split between the CIP Fund reserve and loan.
For example, if the cost for the project increased to $16 million from the current estimate
of $15.7 million, after using ARPA and Quimby Fund, the remaining balance of
$11,480,000 will be split evenly between the CIP Fund reserve and a loan.
Currently, the two restricted funds that the City can consider using for the project would
come from the anticipated funds from the anticipated ARPA and Quimby Fund. The
estimated funding from ARPA for the City is approximately $7.8 million. The estimated
fund balance in Quimby Fund on June 30, 2021 , is approximately $943,500. The FAC
recommends using up to 50% of ARPA and all the available funds from the Quimby
Fund for this project.
E-4
Table 1 below estimates how the project funding would be allocated based on the cost
estimate of $15.7 million presented at the April 6 meeting.
Table 1: Ladera Linda Funding Summary
The following discussion provides details to the above allocation.
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
The ARPA was approved by Congress and subsequently signed into law by President
Biden on March 11, 2021. The relief package provides funding in several areas such as
state and local aid, education, rental assistance, and transit. Based on the preliminary
information that the City received from the Government Finance Officers Association and
the League of California Cities, the City’s allocation under the state and local fiscal aid of
$350 billion is estimated to be $7.8 million. Based on the most current information,
eligible uses may include:
• Revenue replacement for the provision of government services to the extent of
the reduction in revenue due to the COVID-19 public health emergency relative to
revenues collected in the most recent fiscal year prior to the emergency;
• Premium pay for essential workers;
• Assistance to small businesses, households, and hard-hit industries, and
economic recovery
• Investments in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure.
The FAC recommends using up to 50% of the allocation from the ARPA to fund the
project based on the following reasons:
• The project is ready and eligible for ARPA funds under revenue replacement.
o Due to the sudden revenue loss from the TOT over the last 18 months, the
City may use ARPA funds for the purpose of revenue replacement. As
illustrated in Table 2 below, the City’s estimated TOT revenue loss is $4.5
million.
o Since over 90% of the City’s TOT is transferred to the CIP to fund capital
projects, it would be an opportunity to utilize this grant and replace the
revenue loss in the CIP caused by the pandemic.
Funding Description Amount
ARPA Fund $3,908,500 25%
Quimby Fund 943,500 6%
CIP Fund 5,338,000 34%
iBank Loan 5,500,000 35%
Total Funding $15,690,000
E-5
o Additionally, by applying for the revenue replacement section of the ARPA,
the City may have more control on how funds can be used for capital projects.
Whereas the other eligible uses are restricted for a specific purpose (i.e.,
infrastructure is listed for water, sewer, and broadband).
• Timing
o The funding for ARPA must be spent, not committed, by December 2024.
Based on the current staffing capacity and the scheduled projects from the
five-year CIP presented to the City Council on April 12, 2021, it would seem
unattainable to schedule additional capital projects and spend more than 50%
of the ARPA funds by 2024.
Table 2: Estimated Revenue Losses
*FY 2020-21 year-end estimates is based on the third quarter review as presented in
the preliminary budget report.
Quimby Fund
The Quimby Fund is a restricted fund for parks and recreation usage. Therefore, the
project is an eligible use of funds. The revenue sources for this fund are from developer
fees and dedication of land for park and recreation purposes. At the beginning of FY
2020-21, the Quimby Fund had a fund balance of almost $1.1 million and is projected to
end the year with just over $943,500. The reduction is due to the outstanding contract
balance with Johnson Favaro, the project designer. The FAC recommends using all
available funds in Quimby Fund.
Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) Fund
The CIP Fund is the primary funding source for the City’s capital projects. At the start of
FY 2020-21, CIP had a fund balance of over $25.3 million. This fund is estimated to end
the year with $24.5 million in fund balance. The City Council Reserve Policy requires
the CIP Fund to maintain a reserve of $5 million, leaving the fund with an estimated
excess reserve of over $19.5 million on June 30, 2021.
TOTAL
REVENUE
LOSSES
FY 18-19
Actuals
FY 19-20
Actuals
FY 19-20
Losses
FY 20-21
YE Est.
FY 20-21
Losses
TOT (4,545,195) 5,645,497 3,909,799 (1,735,698) 2,836,000 (2,809,497)
Sales tax (1,186,720) 2,661,181 2,163,342 (497,839) 1,972,300 (688,881)
Permits & fees (718,290) 2,217,106 1,916,822 (300,284) 1,799,100 (418,006)
Business License (280,418) 945,792 896,166 (49,626) 715,000 (230,792)
Interest Earnings (214,586) 366,409 358,232 (8,177) 160,000 (206,409)
Rental/Leases (702,382) 478,729 189,076 (289,653) 66,000 (412,729)
PVIC Sales (174,708) 137,551 92,494 (45,057) 7,900 (129,651)
TOTAL (7,822,299) 12,452,265 9,525,931 (2,926,334) 7,556,300 (4,895,965)
E-6
CIP Fund spending can be split into two general categories: annual capital projects,
which are funded by annual transfers from the General Fund, and one-time City
Council-directed projects, which are funded by the CIP excess fund reserve. Based on
past City Council policy when Terranea was being entitled, it was determined that TOT
generated from the hotel would not support General Fund operations but rather
transferred to the CIP to fund annual capital projects. That has been the practice of the
City until FY2017-18, when the TOT began funding the increases to the Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s contract. Funds for some CIP projects that were not completed in the
past were moved to the CIP Reserve, as well as the occasional transfer of funds from
the General Fund. The intent was to build a healthy reserve for unforeseen projects
and/or fund one-time City Council-directed capital projects for the public’s benefit and
use.
Staff reviewed the CIP Fund and less than 40% of the budget was typically spent by
June 30 of each fiscal year, with an average of $3.3 million spent on capital project over
the last three fiscal years between FY 2018-19 and FY 2020-21. In other words, the
remaining unspent funds were returned to the fund balance. Based on the 10-year
forecast for transfers from General Fund to CIP Fund, the average transfer is estimated
at over $3.4 million from FY 2022-23 to FY 2030-31 (Attachment A). The estimated
transfer amount includes the estimated reduction of $2 million from public safety
increases. Therefore, the FAC is comfortable with making the recommendation of using
the CIP excess reserve to fund the project and the annual payment for any debt service.
Based on the current estimated project cost of $15.7 million, the projected use of the
CIP excess reserve as recommended by the FAC, is approximately $5.3 million plus the
annual payment of any debt service for the next 10 years of just over $6.3 million for a
total use of CIP reserve of about $11.6 million (see next section on debt service). With
conservative estimates of $2,200,000 on interest earnings and $2,200,000 on additional
transfers from the General Fund over 10 years, the net impact on the CIP Fund is $7.3
million over the next 10 years, bringing the CIP Fund balance to approximately $16.8
million in FY 2030-31. This fund balance would enable the City to fund one-time
unforeseen capital project or other City Council-directed projects, such as the
Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation or Western Avenue Beautification projects, if
desired. This does not account for potential grant funds available for future capital
projects, such as the Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation project as currently
being sought.
Table 3: Estimated Net Impact on the CIP Fund
FY 2020-21 Estimated ending fund balance 24,098,510$
Initial funding for Ladera Linda (5,338,000)
10-year of annual payments (6,355,400)
Projected 10-year interests 2,200,000
Projected 10-year of additional transfers 2,200,000
FY 2030-31 Estimated ending fund balance 16,805,110$
Estimated Net impact on CIP Fund (7,293,400)$
E-7
iBank Financing Process
The Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISFR) Program with iBank offers low-cost
public financing to state and local governments. ISRF financing is available between
$50,000 to $25 million with the loan terms up to a maximum of 30 years or the useful life
of the project.
Below is an estimated processing timeline to obtain an ISFR loan with iBank.
The first step is a preliminary review in which iBank’s credit committee reviews the
City’s financials and the proposed project to ensure that the financing complies with
underwriting criteria. Once the credit committee approves the project, the City would
receive an invitation to apply for the loan. iBank would work with Staff to draft the
resolution for the City Council’s consideration at a future meeting and assist with the
application and the preparation of the staff report for the iBank’s Board of Directors.
Once the board approves the loan, its legal counsel would prepare the legal documents
to fund the loan.
If the City Council proceeds with the FAC’s recommendation, the total estimated project
cost may have to be revised to include the cost for financing the project with iBank over
a 10-year term. The financing cost for the 10-year loan is estimated at $855,400 at this
time. The annual payment for the 10-year loan is estimated at $635,540 coming from
the CIP excess fund reserve based on a proposed $5.5 million loan.
If the City Council approves using iBank as a lending option, Staff seeks authorization
from the City Council to proceed with Step 1, preliminary review, and specific details on
the financing process. Staff would bring back a report to update the City Council on the
process and details as they become available. It is also important to note that the loan
would not be finalized until approved and accepted by the City Council at a public
meeting.
Prelimary Review
2 to 4 weeks
Receive an Invitation to
apply
Completed Application
and Board Approval
60 to 90 days
E-8
Framework to Replenish the CIP Fund
Besides reviewing, evaluating, and providing a recommendation for financing options for
the project, the FAC also recommends the combined use of the following to replenish
the CIP Fund Reserves:
• Using interest earnings from CIP’s fund balance.
• Transferring any surplus from the General Fund to the CIP Fund Reserve; and,
• Developing a capital campaign to raise private donations.
Interest Earnings
Over the last two years, the CIP Fund has earned almost $1 million in interest earnings.
In FY 2018-19, the interest earned was $509,000 and $471,000 in FY 2019-20. For the
current fiscal year, the estimated interest-earning is approximately $300,000. The
Subcommittee recommends using the interest earned to replenish the fund balance.
Staff has taken a conservative approach and projected a flat $200,000 annually in
interest earnings in the forecast model. This is to account for the timing of the
disbursement of funds on the project compared to the interest earning from the loan
disbursement and the ARPA allocation. The FAC supported this recommendation.
Surplus Transfers from the General Fund
Typically, in December, the Finance Department brings forward a staff report on the
City’s unaudited actuals of the previous fiscal year. This report highlights any
surplus/deficit in the General Fund, revenues minus expenditures. Looking back at the
last four years, the General Fund ended the year with a surplus ranging from $223,000
to $1.9 million. The estimated surplus for FY 2020-21, as presented in the preliminary
budget report, is over $700,000.
Table 4: Five-Year History of the General Fund Surplus
*FY 2020-21 surplus is an estimate based on the third quarter review in preliminary
budget report.
Based on this information, the FAC recommends transferring a portion of the surplus
calculated at year-end to the CIP Fund to replenish the excess reserve. For the purpose
of the model, Staff used $200,000 annually as the additional transfer from the General
Fund, which is the lowest surplus over five years. The FAC supported this
FY 2020-21 FY 2019-20 FY 2018-19 FY 2017-18 FY 2016-17
Revenues 28,529,200 29,499,005 31,911,048 30,682,619 29,449,666
Expenditures (27,802,800) (28,538,827) (29,201,461) (29,429,062) (27,692,362)
PO Carry-forward - (167,175) (341,432) (715,164) (963,643)
Continuing appropriation - (569,400) (400,000) (300,000) (415,000)
Surplus 726,400 223,603 1,968,155 238,393 378,661
E-9
recommendation. If acceptable, this option will be included in the year-end report that
goes to the City Council every December.
Capital Campaign
The Subcommittee also recommended the use of private donations to replenish the CIP
fund balance. The approach for this recommendation would be a more inclusive
approach by developing a donation program for the City’s various capital projects. To
encourage donations, the capital campaign could provide a donor wall and naming
opportunities pursuant to City Council Policy No. 37. Any donation received would go
directly to replenish the CIP Fund.
If acceptable, the FAC recommends that the City Council appoint a City Council
subcommittee or create a new committee and onboard a consultant to develop a capital
campaign program. At this time, the City Council may wish to have the Public Facilities
Subcommittee, consisting of Mayor Alegria and Councilman Cruikshank, to serve in this
capacity.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Minor Modification No. 1
On May 5, 2021, the Director of Community Development issued a Notice of Decision
(NOD) for approval of Minor Modification No. 1 to the City Council-approved Conditional
Use Permit, Variance, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review for the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park Project (Case No. PLCU2020-0007). The design
modifications include the reconfiguration of the proposed open-air restroom
configuration (individual water closets and communal wash area) into enclosed, and
separate men’s and women’s restrooms consisting of traditional stalls and washbasins,
and minor reconfiguration of the parking lot, as seen in the revised site plan below:
E-10
The NOD provides for a 15-day period to appeal the Director’s decision to the City
Council. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed,
the Director’s decision will be final at 5:30 PM on Thursday, May 20, 2021.
Project Cost Estimate Update
As a result of the approval of Minor Modification No. 1, Staff is working on estimating
the full cost of enclosing the bathrooms to accommodate a separate men’s and
women’s bathroom. At this time, the anticipated cost of enclosing the bathrooms
remains approximately $175,000 as stated in the April 6, 2021 Staff Report plus any
escalation, associated soft costs, and contingency. Additionally, Staff is working to
estimate the cost of installing security shutters on glass surfaces, which is anticipated to
be approximately $250,000 plus escalation, associated soft costs, and contingency.
In response to community feedback, Staff is working with the project’s cost estimator
(MGAC Inc.) to reformat the project cost estimate document to include more detailed
information that can be presented in a format that is easily interpreted by the general
public. The updated and re-formatted cost estimate is expected to be complete in the
next several weeks, at which time it will be made available to the public and presented
to the City Council at a future meeting.
The design of the enclosed bathrooms and security shutters, as well as the cost
estimate updates and format changes are an additional service that will require a n
amendment to the Johnson Favaro contract. This contract amendment is estimated to
be brought to City Council as early as June 2021.
In the coming weeks and months, Staff will bring other contract amendments to the City
Council as the design progresses further towards construction documents. These will
include hiring a security sub-consultant and a dry utility coordination sub-consultant,
among others. Such sub-consultants and similar contract amendments were accounted
in the overall project cost estimate presented to the City Council on April 6 and do not
represent a cost increase.
Project Construction Manager
Based on City Council directive at the April 12 CIP workshop, Staff is in the process of
publishing a request for proposal to on-board a project construction manager. Between
now and the adoption of the budget in June 2021, staff will collect proposals and
conduct selection interviews, that may include the participation on the interview panel by
the City Council Public Facilities Subcommittee, so that a professional service
agreement may be considered by the City Council soon after the budget is adopted.
E-11
Finance Advisory Committee
The Chair, Vice-Chair, and a member of the subcommittee have been invited to attend
the May 18 City Council meeting to answer any questions pertaining to their
recommendation.
KTS Consulting
On February 25, Kosmont Transaction Services (KTS) provided a high-level overview of
the procurement and financing options to the FAC. At the April 22 FAC meeting, KTS
provided Staff with three amortization schedules to finance the project with a Lease
Revenue Bond at 50%, 75%, and 100%. After comparing the cost of financing through
bond and loan, FAC recommended not to consider a bond to fund the project for the
following reasons:
• High cost of issuance
• The City would have to go through a public credit rating
• The debt amount is relatively small
• The projected interest rate is higher
Staff has provided the FAC recommendation to KTS, who suggest the City consider (1)
a private direct lending with a term of 5- to 15-years at an expected cost between
$100,000 to $125,000, or (2) a public offering with a term of 5- to 30-years with the
expected costs between $150,000 to $175,000 . Although the City may be able to obtain
a competitive interest rate, the City will have an additional cost of borrowing on top of
the interest cost. FAC recommends that the added cost associated with issuance and
the public credit rating for the amount of debt that it recommends is not worth pursuing
at this time.
Public Comments
As of May 11, the City received 34 public comments (Attachment E). The majority of the
public comments express opposition to the project and using public funds to pay for the
project.
CONCLUSION:
The FAC recommends, unanimously, that the City Council consider financing the
project using 50% of the ARPA funds, the Quimby Fund, and the remaining balance to
be split between a 10-year loan from iBank and the CIP Fund Reserve. The approval of
the funding option as proposed will not result in any tax increases to the community.
E-12
(1) Capital Infrastructure Improvement Fund 10-year Forecast with ARPA
Financing 100% of the project cost
Using ARPA for loan payments up to December of 2024 and Quimby balance in FY 24-25 and FY 25-26
Reduced transfers in by $2M for public safety
Capital
Improvement
FY 2020-21
Capital
Improvement
FY 2021-22
Capital
Improvement
FY 2022-23
Capital
Improvement
FY 2023-24
Capital
Improvement
FY 2024-25
Capital
Improvement
FY 2025-26
Capital
Improvement
FY 2026-27
Capital
Improvement
FY 2027-28
Capital
Improvement
FY 2028-29
Capital
Improvement
FY 2029-30
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Beginning Fund Balance 7/1 25,344,808 24,538,510 24,546,510 24,946,510 25,346,510 25,746,510 25,150,910 23,758,210 22,370,610 20,988,310 19,611,310 18,239,810
Add: Revenues 205,224 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Add: Transfers in 1,557,200 2,553,000 2,861,000 3,400,000 3,427,000 3,455,000 3,482,000 3,509,000 3,537,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000
Total Revenues 1,762,424 2,753,000 3,061,000 3,600,000 3,627,000 3,655,000 3,682,000 3,709,000 3,737,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000
Less: Capital Project (2,568,722)(2,945,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Less: Operating Expenses 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Less: Transfers Out 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures (2,568,722)(2,945,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Ladera Linda Annual Payment (130,000)(1,811,800)(1,807,300)(1,661,000)(995,600)(1,792,700)(1,787,600)(1,782,300)(1,777,000)(1,771,500)(1,765,900)
Replenishing CIP Fund Balance 0 330,000 2,011,800 2,007,300 1,861,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Operating revenues generated from LL
General Fund Surplus at the end of the FY 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)130,000 1,811,800 1,807,300 1,661,000
Fundraiser for LL
Donation for LL
Total Fiscal Impact from LL 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 (795,600)(1,592,700)(1,587,600)(1,582,300)(1,577,000)(1,571,500)(1,565,900)
Ending Fund Balance 24,538,510 24,546,510 24,946,510 25,346,510 25,746,510 25,150,910 23,758,210 22,370,610 20,988,310 19,611,310 18,239,810 16,873,910
Council Reserve (5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)
Excess Reserve 19,538,510 19,546,510 19,946,510 20,346,510 20,746,510 20,150,910 18,758,210 17,370,610 15,988,310 14,611,310 13,239,810 11,873,910
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 6/30 24,098,510 23,674,010 23,874,010 24,074,010 24,274,010 24,474,010 24,674,010 24,874,010 25,074,010 25,274,010 25,474,010 25,464,010
Changes in ending fund balance 440,000 872,500 1,072,500 1,272,500 1,472,500 676,900 (915,800)(2,503,400)(4,085,700)(5,662,700)(7,234,200)(8,590,100)
% of change 1.83%3.69%4.49%5.29%6.07%2.77%-3.71%-10.06%-16.29%-22.41%-28.40%-33.73%
E-13
(2) Capital Infrastructure Improvement Fund 10-year Forecast with ARPA
Financing 75% of the project cost
Using ARPA for loan payments up to December of 2024 and Quimby balance in FY 24-25 and FY 25-26
Reduced transfers in by $2M for public safety
Capital
Improvement
FY 2020-21
Capital
Improvement
FY 2021-22
Capital
Improvement
FY 2022-23
Capital
Improvement
FY 2023-24
Capital
Improvement
FY 2024-25
Capital
Improvement
FY 2025-26
Capital
Improvement
FY 2026-27
Capital
Improvement
FY 2027-28
Capital
Improvement
FY 2028-29
Capital
Improvement
FY 2029-30
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Beginning Fund Balance 7/1 25,344,808 24,098,510 20,576,010 20,976,010 21,376,010 21,776,010 21,627,910 20,648,910 19,673,810 18,702,710 17,735,710 16,773,010
Add: Revenues 205,224 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Add: Transfers in 1,117,200 3,000,000 2,861,000 3,400,000 3,427,000 3,455,000 3,482,000 3,509,000 3,537,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000
Total Revenues 1,322,424 3,200,000 3,061,000 3,600,000 3,627,000 3,655,000 3,682,000 3,709,000 3,737,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000
Less: Capital Project (2,568,722)(3,000,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Less: Operating Expenses 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Less: Transfers Out 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures (2,568,722)(3,000,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Ladera Linda Initial Funding (3,922,500)
Ladera Linda Annual Payment (100,000)(1,393,700)(1,390,200)(1,277,700)(548,100)(1,379,000)(1,375,100)(1,371,100)(1,367,000)(1,362,700)(1,358,400)
Replenishing CIP Fund Balance 0 300,000 1,593,700 1,590,200 1,477,700 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Operating revenues generated from LL
General Fund Surplus at the end of the FY 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)100,000 1,393,700 1,390,200 1,277,700
Fundraiser for LL
Donation for LL
Total Fiscal Impact from LL 0 (3,722,500)200,000 200,000 200,000 (348,100)(1,179,000)(1,175,100)(1,171,100)(1,167,000)(1,162,700)(1,158,400)
Ending Fund Balance 24,098,510 20,576,010 20,976,010 21,376,010 21,776,010 21,627,910 20,648,910 19,673,810 18,702,710 17,735,710 16,773,010 15,814,610
Council Reserve (5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)
Excess Reserve 19,098,510 15,576,010 15,976,010 16,376,010 16,776,010 16,627,910 15,648,910 14,673,810 13,702,710 12,735,710 11,773,010 10,814,610
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 6/30 24,098,510 23,674,010 23,874,010 24,074,010 24,274,010 24,474,010 24,674,010 24,874,010 25,074,010 25,274,010 25,474,010 25,464,010
Changes in ending fund balance 0 (3,098,000)(2,898,000)(2,698,000)(2,498,000)(2,846,100)(4,025,100)(5,200,200)(6,371,300)(7,538,300)(8,701,000)(9,649,400)
% of change 0.00%-13.09%-12.14%-11.21%-10.29%-11.63%-16.31%-20.91%-25.41%-29.83%-34.16%-37.89%
E-14
(3) Capital Infrastructure Improvement Fund 10-year Forecast with ARPA
Financing 50% of the project cost
Using ARPA for loan payments up to December of 2024 and Quimby balance in FY 24-25 and FY 25-26
Reduced transfers in by $2M for public safety
Capital
Improvement
FY 2020-21
Capital
Improvement
FY 2021-22
Capital
Improvement
FY 2022-23
Capital
Improvement
FY 2023-24
Capital
Improvement
FY 2024-25
Capital
Improvement
FY 2025-26
Capital
Improvement
FY 2026-27
Capital
Improvement
FY 2027-28
Capital
Improvement
FY 2028-29
Capital
Improvement
FY 2029-30
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Beginning Fund Balance 7/1 25,344,808 24,098,510 16,653,510 17,053,510 17,453,510 17,853,510 18,215,110 17,707,310 17,202,010 16,699,310 16,199,410 15,712,310
Add: Revenues 205,224 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Add: Transfers in 1,117,200 3,000,000 2,861,000 3,400,000 3,427,000 3,455,000 3,482,000 3,509,000 3,537,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000
Total Revenues 1,322,424 3,200,000 3,061,000 3,600,000 3,627,000 3,655,000 3,682,000 3,709,000 3,737,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000
Less: Capital Project (2,568,722)(3,000,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Less: Operating Expenses 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Less: Transfers Out 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures (2,568,722)(3,000,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Ladera Linda Initial Funding (7,845,000)
Ladera Linda Annual Payment (65,800)(917,500)(915,200)(841,200)(38,400)(907,800)(905,300)(902,700)(899,900)(887,100)(894,300)
Replenishing CIP Fund Balance 0 265,800 1,117,500 1,115,200 1,041,200 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Operating revenues generated from LL
General Fund Surplus at the end of the FY 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)65,800 917,500 915,200 841,200
Fundraiser for LL
Donation for LL
Total Fiscal Impact from LL 0 (7,645,000)200,000 200,000 200,000 161,600 (707,800)(705,300)(702,700)(699,900)(687,100)(694,300)
Ending Fund Balance 24,098,510 16,653,510 17,053,510 17,453,510 17,853,510 18,215,110 17,707,310 17,202,010 16,699,310 16,199,410 15,712,310 15,218,010
Council Reserve (5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)
Excess Reserve 19,098,510 11,653,510 12,053,510 12,453,510 12,853,510 13,215,110 12,707,310 12,202,010 11,699,310 11,199,410 10,712,310 10,218,010
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 6/30 24,098,510 23,674,010 23,874,010 24,074,010 24,274,010 24,474,010 24,674,010 24,874,010 25,074,010 25,274,010 25,474,010 25,464,010
Changes in ending fund balance 0 (7,020,500)(6,820,500)(6,620,500)(6,420,500)(6,258,900)(6,966,700)(7,672,000)(8,374,700)(9,074,600)(9,761,700)(10,246,000)
% of change 0.00%-29.65%-28.57%-27.50%-26.45%-25.57%-28.23%-30.84%-33.40%-35.90%-38.32%-40.24%
E-15
(4) Capital Infrastructure Improvement Fund 10-year Forecast with ARPA
Reduced transfers in by $2M for public safety
10-year loan
Capital
Improvement
FY 2020-21
Capital
Improvement
FY 2021-22
Capital
Improvement
FY 2022-23
Capital
Improvement
FY 2023-24
Capital
Improvement
FY 2024-25
Capital
Improvement
FY 2025-26
Capital
Improvement
FY 2026-27
Capital
Improvement
FY 2027-28
Capital
Improvement
FY 2028-29
Capital
Improvement
FY 2029-30
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Beginning Fund Balance 7/1 25,344,808 24,098,510 19,114,710 18,875,910 18,638,710 18,403,210 18,169,410 17,937,410 17,707,210 17,478,810 17,252,310 17,027,710
Add: Revenues 205,224 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Add: Transfers in 1,117,200 3,000,000 2,861,000 3,400,000 3,427,000 3,455,000 3,482,000 3,509,000 3,537,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000
Total Revenues 1,322,424 3,200,000 3,061,000 3,600,000 3,627,000 3,655,000 3,682,000 3,709,000 3,737,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000
Less: Capital Project (2,568,722)(3,000,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Less: Operating Expenses 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Less: Transfers Out 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures (2,568,722)(3,000,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Ladera Linda Initial Funding (5,338,000)
Ladera Linda Annual Payment (45,800)(638,800)(637,200)(635,500)(633,800)(632,000)(630,200)(628,400)(626,500)(624,600)(622,600)
Replenishing CIP Fund Balance 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Operating revenues generated from LL
General Fund Surplus at the end of the FY 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
Fundraiser for LL
Donation for LL
Total Fiscal Impact from LL 0 (5,183,800)(438,800)(437,200)(435,500)(433,800)(432,000)(430,200)(428,400)(426,500)(424,600)(422,600)
Ending Fund Balance 24,098,510 19,114,710 18,875,910 18,638,710 18,403,210 18,169,410 17,937,410 17,707,210 17,478,810 17,252,310 17,027,710 16,805,110
Council Reserve (5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)
Excess Reserve 19,098,510 14,114,710 13,875,910 13,638,710 13,403,210 13,169,410 12,937,410 12,707,210 12,478,810 12,252,310 12,027,710 11,805,110
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 6/30 24,098,510 23,674,010 23,874,010 24,074,010 24,274,010 24,474,010 24,674,010 24,874,010 25,074,010 25,274,010 25,474,010 25,464,010
Changes in ending fund balance 0 (4,559,300)(4,998,100)(5,435,300)(5,870,800)(6,304,600)(6,736,600)(7,166,800)(7,595,200)(8,021,700)(8,446,300)(8,658,900)
% of change 0.00%-19.26%-20.94%-22.58%-24.19%-25.76%-27.30%-28.81%-30.29%-31.74%-33.16%-34.00%
E-16
(4) Capital Infrastructure Improvement Fund 15-year Forecast with ARPA
Reduced transfers in by $2M for public safety
15-year loan
Capital
Improvement
FY 2020-21
Capital
Improvement
FY 2021-22
Capital
Improvement
FY 2022-23
Capital
Improvement
FY 2023-24
Capital
Improvement
FY 2024-25
Capital
Improvement
FY 2025-26
Capital
Improvement
FY 2026-27
Capital
Improvement
FY 2027-28
Capital
Improvement
FY 2028-29
Capital
Improvement
FY 2029-30
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Capital
Improvement
FY 2031-32
Capital
Improvement
FY 2032-33
Capital
Improvement
FY 2033-34
Capital
Improvement
FY 2034-35
Capital
Improvement
FY 2035-36
Capital
Improvement
FY 2035-36
Beginning Fund Balance 7/1 25,344,808 24,098,510 19,114,710 19,057,810 19,001,910 18,947,110 18,893,310 18,840,610 18,789,110 18,738,710 18,689,510 18,641,510 18,594,710 18,549,210 18,505,010 18,462,110 18,420,610
Add: Revenues 205,224 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Add: Transfers in 1,117,200 3,000,000 2,861,000 3,400,000 3,427,000 3,455,000 3,482,000 3,509,000 3,537,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000
Total Revenues 1,322,424 3,200,000 3,061,000 3,600,000 3,627,000 3,655,000 3,682,000 3,709,000 3,737,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000
Less: Capital Project (2,568,722)(3,000,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Less: Operating Expenses 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Less: Transfers Out 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures (2,568,722)(3,000,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Ladera Linda Initial Funding (5,338,000)
Ladera Linda Annual Payment (45,800)(456,900)(455,900)(454,800)(453,800)(452,700)(451,500)(450,400)(449,200)(448,000)(446,800)(445,500)(444,200)(442,900)(441,500)(440,100)
Replenishing CIP Fund Balance 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Operating revenues generated from LL
General Fund Surplus at the end of the FY 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
Fundraiser for LL
Donation for LL
Total Fiscal Impact from LL 0 (5,183,800)(256,900)(255,900)(254,800)(253,800)(252,700)(251,500)(250,400)(249,200)(248,000)(246,800)(245,500)(244,200)(242,900)(241,500)(240,100)
Ending Fund Balance 24,098,510 19,114,710 19,057,810 19,001,910 18,947,110 18,893,310 18,840,610 18,789,110 18,738,710 18,689,510 18,641,510 18,594,710 18,549,210 18,505,010 18,462,110 18,420,610 18,380,510
Council Reserve (5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)
Excess Reserve 19,098,510 14,114,710 14,057,810 14,001,910 13,947,110 13,893,310 13,840,610 13,789,110 13,738,710 13,689,510 13,641,510 13,594,710 13,549,210 13,505,010 13,462,110 13,420,610 13,380,510
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 6/30 24,098,510 23,674,010 23,874,010 24,074,010 24,274,010 24,474,010 24,674,010 24,874,010 25,074,010 25,274,010 25,474,010 25,674,010 25,874,010 26,074,010 26,274,010 26,474,010 26,674,010
Changes in ending fund balance 0 (4,559,300)(4,816,200)(5,072,100)(5,326,900)(5,580,700)(5,833,400)(6,084,900)(6,335,300)(6,584,500)(6,832,500)(7,079,300)(7,324,800)(7,569,000)(7,811,900)(8,053,400)(8,293,500)
% of change 0.00%-19.26%-20.17%-21.07%-21.94%-22.80%-23.64%-24.46%-25.27%-26.05%-26.82%-27.57%-28.31%-29.03%-29.73%-30.42%-31.09%
E-17
$5,500,000
2.50%Loan or Lease Loan
0.30%
10/1/2021 Fiscal Year Ends June 30
First Interest Only Pmt Date 2/1/2022
First Principal Pmt Date 8/1/2022
10
Amortization Period 10
- -
Payment
Date
Ending Principal
Balance
Principal
Payment
Interest
Payment
Total Principal &
Interest Annual Fee Total Payment Total Payment Fiscal
Year Ending June 30
1-Oct-2021 $5,500,000.00
1-Feb-2022 $45,833.33 $45,833.33 $45,833.33 $45,833.33
1-Aug-2022 $5,009,076.80 $490,923.20 $68,750.00 $559,673.20 $16,500.00 $576,173.20
1-Feb-2023 $62,613.46 $62,613.46 $62,613.46 $638,786.66
1-Aug-2023 $4,505,880.53 $503,196.28 $62,613.46 $565,809.74 $15,027.23 $580,836.97
1-Feb-2024 $56,323.51 $56,323.51 $56,323.51 $637,160.47
1-Aug-2024 $3,990,104.34 $515,776.18 $56,323.51 $572,099.69 $13,517.64 $585,617.33
1-Feb-2025 $49,876.30 $49,876.30 $49,876.30 $635,493.64
1-Aug-2025 $3,461,433.75 $528,670.59 $49,876.30 $578,546.89 $11,970.31 $590,517.21
1-Feb-2026 $43,267.92 $43,267.92 $43,267.92 $633,785.13
1-Aug-2026 $2,919,546.40 $541,887.35 $43,267.92 $585,155.28 $10,384.30 $595,539.58
1-Feb-2027 $36,494.33 $36,494.33 $36,494.33 $632,033.91
1-Aug-2027 $2,364,111.86 $555,434.54 $36,494.33 $591,928.87 $8,758.64 $600,687.51
1-Feb-2028 $29,551.40 $29,551.40 $29,551.40 $630,238.90
1-Aug-2028 $1,794,791.46 $569,320.40 $29,551.40 $598,871.80 $7,092.34 $605,964.13
1-Feb-2029 $22,434.89 $22,434.89 $22,434.89 $628,399.03
1-Aug-2029 $1,211,238.05 $583,553.41 $22,434.89 $605,988.30 $5,384.37 $611,372.68
1-Feb-2030 $15,140.48 $15,140.48 $15,140.48 $626,513.15
1-Aug-2030 $613,095.80 $598,142.25 $15,140.48 $613,282.72 $3,633.71 $616,916.44
1-Feb-2031 $7,663.70 $7,663.70 $7,663.70 $624,580.13
1-Aug-2031 $613,095.80 $7,663.70 $620,759.50 $1,839.29 $622,598.79
$622,598.79
$5,500,000.00 $761,315.31 $6,261,315.31 $94,107.84 $6,355,423.15 $6,355,423.15Total Payments:
Applicant/Project Name
Loan Amount
Interest Rate
Annual Fee
Funding Date
Loan Years
City of Ranchos Palos Verdes - Ladera Park
Note: The Interest Rate shown in this example has not
been quoted or approved and represents an indictive rate
based on similar loans.
E-18
$5,500,000
2.50%Loan or Lease Loan
0.30%
10/1/2021 Fiscal Year Ends June 30
First Interest Only Pmt Date 2/1/2022
First Principal Pmt Date 8/1/2022
15
Amortization Period 15
- -
Payment
Date
Ending Principal
Balance
Principal
Payment
Interest
Payment
Total Principal &
Interest Annual Fee Total Payment Total Payment Fiscal
Year Ending June 30
1-Oct-2021 $5,500,000.00
1-Feb-2022 $45,833.33 $45,833.33 $45,833.33 $45,833.33
1-Aug-2022 $5,193,284.49 $306,715.51 $68,750.00 $375,465.51 $16,500.00 $391,965.51
1-Feb-2023 $64,916.06 $64,916.06 $64,916.06 $456,881.56
1-Aug-2023 $4,878,901.10 $314,383.40 $64,916.06 $379,299.45 $15,579.85 $394,879.31
1-Feb-2024 $60,986.26 $60,986.26 $60,986.26 $455,865.57
1-Aug-2024 $4,556,658.11 $322,242.98 $60,986.26 $383,229.24 $14,636.70 $397,865.95
1-Feb-2025 $56,958.23 $56,958.23 $56,958.23 $454,824.17
1-Aug-2025 $4,226,359.06 $330,299.06 $56,958.23 $387,257.28 $13,669.97 $400,927.26
1-Feb-2026 $52,829.49 $52,829.49 $52,829.49 $453,756.74
1-Aug-2026 $3,887,802.53 $338,556.53 $52,829.49 $391,386.02 $12,679.08 $404,065.10
1-Feb-2027 $48,597.53 $48,597.53 $48,597.53 $452,662.63
1-Aug-2027 $3,540,782.08 $347,020.45 $48,597.53 $395,617.98 $11,663.41 $407,281.38
1-Feb-2028 $44,259.78 $44,259.78 $44,259.78 $451,541.16
1-Aug-2028 $3,185,086.13 $355,695.96 $44,259.78 $399,955.73 $10,622.35 $410,578.08
1-Feb-2029 $39,813.58 $39,813.58 $39,813.58 $450,391.66
1-Aug-2029 $2,820,497.77 $364,588.36 $39,813.58 $404,401.93 $9,555.26 $413,957.19
1-Feb-2030 $35,256.22 $35,256.22 $35,256.22 $449,213.41
1-Aug-2030 $2,446,794.71 $373,703.06 $35,256.22 $408,959.29 $8,461.49 $417,420.78
1-Feb-2031 $30,584.93 $30,584.93 $30,584.93 $448,005.71
1-Aug-2031 $2,063,749.07 $383,045.64 $30,584.93 $413,630.57 $7,340.38 $420,970.96
1-Feb-2032 $25,796.86 $25,796.86 $25,796.86 $446,767.82
1-Aug-2032 $1,671,127.28 $392,621.78 $25,796.86 $418,418.64 $6,191.25 $424,609.89
1-Feb-2033 $20,889.09 $20,889.09 $20,889.09 $445,498.98
1-Aug-2033 $1,268,689.96 $402,437.33 $20,889.09 $423,326.42 $5,013.38 $428,339.80
1-Feb-2034 $15,858.62 $15,858.62 $15,858.62 $444,198.42
1-Aug-2034 $856,191.70 $412,498.26 $15,858.62 $428,356.88 $3,806.07 $432,162.95
1-Feb-2035 $10,702.40 $10,702.40 $10,702.40 $442,865.35
1-Aug-2035 $433,380.98 $422,810.72 $10,702.40 $433,513.11 $2,568.58 $436,081.69
1-Feb-2036 $5,417.26 $5,417.26 $5,417.26 $441,498.95
1-Aug-2036 $433,380.98 $5,417.26 $438,798.25 $1,300.14 $440,098.39
$440,098.39
$5,500,000.00 $1,140,315.96 $6,640,315.96 $139,587.91 $6,779,903.87 $6,779,903.87
Funding Date
Loan Years
Total Payments:
Applicant/Project Name City of Ranchos Palos Verdes - Ladera Park
Loan Amount
Interest Rate
Annual Fee
Note: The Interest Rate shown in this example has not
been quoted or approved and represents an indictive rate
based on similar loans.
E-19
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 04/22/2021
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to discuss and provide recommendations on the
financing options for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project.
RECOMMENDED FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTION:
1. Discuss and provide recommendations on the financing options for the Ladera
Linda Community Center and Park Project.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Trang Nguyen, Director of Finance
REVIEWED BY: Same as above
APPROVED BY: Same as above
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. City Council April 6, 2021 Staff Report (page A-1)
B. Kosmont Transaction Services Presentation (page B-1)
C. City Council April 12, 2021 Staff Report (page C-1)
D. Debt Management Policy (page D-1)
E. Sample Debt Schedule with iBank (page E -1)
F. Sample Amortization Schedule for Bond (page F-1)
BACKGROUND:
On April 6, 2021, the City Council approved the Ladera Linda Community Center and
Park project. The staff report for the April 6 meeting is attached (Attachment A). The
summary of the approval are as follows:
• Adopted Resolution No. 2021-XX upholding the Planning Commission-
approved planning entitlements, with conditions of approval, consisting of
Conditional Use Permit, Major Grading Permit, Variance and Site Plan Review
application findings (planning entitlements) thereby approving the project. In its
decision, certain conditions were modified including amending Condition No.
31 to add security roll-down gates above and around the bathroom sink area
to fully enclose the bathroom during non-operational afterhours.
E-20
• Directed Staff to proceed with the completion of construction documents and
authorize advertisement of bids upon final completion of plans and
specifications for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park project.
• Directed Staff to relocate and optimize handicap parking spaces closer to the
building and to explore cost and effective ways to install exterior shutters over
glass surfaces to provide necessary security.
Based on the City Council directions on the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park
project, the financing options for the project are presented tonight for the Finance
Advisory Committee in accordance with FY 2020-21 Workplan No. 9c that states:
Receive a presentation and make recommendations on the Ladera Linda Community
Park and the associated financial implication.
In line with this goal, on February 25, 2021, the FAC received a presentation from
Kosmont Transaction Services (KTS) on the procurement and financing options for the
project (Attachment B). Below is a summary of the procurement and financing options as
presented.
Procurement Options
• Traditional
o The City’s responsibility is from start to finish of the project.
o Requires bidding out most components of the project.
o May take longer to complete.
o Flexible financing options.
• Total Project Delivery
o The City is not responsible for the project installation.
o Guaranteed delivery.
o Limited to lease payment.
• Design-Build
o The City’s responsibility is from start to finish of the project.
o One contractor to design and build.
o Streamline process to reduce the time to complete.
o Flexible financing options.
Due to the size of the project, the Public-Private Partnership (P3) model was not
presented as a procurement option. A desirable P3 project for most developers would
have to be in the range of $50 million or more. Moreover, since most of the design work
has been completed, the project would be less desirable for a P3 developer.
E-21
Financing Options
• Current Resources
o Cash reserves
o Grants
o Special revenues
• Issue Securities
o Loan
o General Obligation Bonds – requires an affirmative vote of 2/3 of
registered voters.
o Lease Revenue Bonds – no voter requirement
• Lease
o Direct Lease – non-tax exempt, term of less than 30 years
o Total Project Delivery – tax exempt, 30-year term
As reported to the City Council on April 9, the current, all-in, estimated cost for the project
is almost $15.7 million (Attachment A). The estimated fund balance of the Capital
Infrastructure Program (CIP) Fund on June 30, 2021 is just under $24.1 million. After
applying the City Council Reserve Policy of $5 million, the total excess reserve is almost
$18.7 million. As discussed in the April 12, 2021 CIP Budget staff report (Attachment C),
the projects on the 5-year capital improvement plan total almost $52 million with an annual
revenue transferring from the General Fund ranges between $3 to $5 million over the next
five years.
Besides the CIP Fund, the City’s Quimby Fund can also be used for this project. Quimby
Fund is funded by the developer fees or dedication of land for park and recreation
purposes. The estimated fund balance for Quimby Fund at June 30, 2021 is just under
$950,000.
DISCUSSION:
Evaluating Financing Options
After years of project planning that included many community engagement and public
meetings, on April 6, the City Council approved the Ladera Linda Community Center and
Park project. Accordingly, if public financing is considered, the City would use the Debt
Management Policy (Attachment D) for guidance. The policy was recommended by FAC
and adopted by the City Council in June 2015. Based on the policy, the City will evaluate
the use of debt in-lieu of pay-as-you-go financing based on the following criteria:
1. Current reserves or projected revenues are adequate to fund the project;
2. Proposed debt levels would have a deleterious effect on the City’s credit position
or rating; and
3. Credit market conditions are unstable or present d ifficulty in marketing the
proposed debt.
E-22
Moreover, the policy outlines the following six factors favoring the use of debt:
1. Revenues are deemed to be stable and reliable enough to support the proposed
debt at investment grade rating levels;
2. The nature of the financed project will support investment grade ratings:
3. Credit market conditions present favorable interest rates and demand for financing
such as the City’s;
4. The proposed project is required by the state or federal government and present
resources are insufficient or unavailable to fund the project;
5. The proposed project is immediately required to meet or relieve capacity needs
and current resources are insufficient or unavailable; and
6. The estimated useful life of the asset to be financed is greater than 5 years.
Financing Options
As presented by KTS on February 25, the two procurement options available for this
project are traditional and total lease delivery. Depending on the procurement option, the
financing options may be different. For the purpose of this meeting, staff has included all
the financing options available for discussion.
Cash/Current Resources
This option is to utilize existing cash resources to fund the entire project. At the end of FY
2020-21, the City is estimated to have over $24 million in the CIP Fund and less than a
$1 million in the Quimby Fund. The CIP Fund is used for the City’s infrastructure projects
with many competing projects that includes public right-of-way, expansion and
rehabilitation of facilities and infrastructure. As stated earlier, over the next five years, the
CIP projects are estimated to reach at $52 million while only anticipating between $3-$5
million in revenues. The Quimby Fund is restricted to park improvements and the only
source of revenue is through development impact fees, dedications, and exactions.
This option would almost deplete the fund balance and significantly reduce the available
funding for other planned capital projects.
Loan/Financing
This option is a traditional financing approach which may be available through iBank.
iBank is the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank. iBank’s mission
is to provide financial assistance and support infrastructure and economic development
in California. The Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISFR) Program is a low-cost public
financing to state and local government. ISRF financing is available between $50,000 to
$25 million with the loan terms up to a maximum of 30 years or the useful life of the
project. A traditional infrastructure loan with iBank can take up to six months until the loan
is finalized, and the fund is disbursed to the City.
E-23
Below is a process timeline to obtain a ISFR loan with iBank.
The first step is preliminary review where iBank’s credit committee reviews the City’s
financials and project to ensure that the financing complies with their underwriting
criteria. Once the credit committee approves the project, the City will receive an
invitation to apply for the loan. At that time, staff will bring forward a resolution to the
City Council to proceed with the loan application. iBank will work with staff to draft the
resolution for the City Council and assist with the application and the preparation of the
staff report for the iBank’s Board of Directors. Once the board approves the loan, their
legal counsel will prepare the legal documents to fund the loan.
Staff obtained a sample financing cost (Attachment E) from iBank. Based on the
amortization schedule, for a debt of $15.6 million with a 10, 20, and 30 years term, the
financing costs could range from $2.4 million up to $7.5 million and the annual
payments range from $1.7 million down to $740,000 depending on the term.
Lease Revenue Bonds
This option is a traditional approach in which public agencies may raise capital by creating
a lease/leaseback structure between the City and its public finance authority. This option
does not have voter requirements like a general municipal obligation bond (see below)
and there is a direct access to capital markets based on City’s credit. This process takes
about 90 - 120 days and assumes the issuance will ultimately be a Lease Revenue Bond
or a Certificate of Participation. This option will require a consultant such as KTS and a
bond counsel to support the City with the process. The following are highlights of the
process:
Prelimary Review
2 to 4 weeks
Receive an Invitation
to apply
Completed
Application and
Board Approval
60 to 90 days
E-24
The preparation stage includes the City Council directing staff to move forward with
preparing the authorization package, forming a bond counsel, drafting the transaction
documents, determining the bond size, term, and repayment structure, and apply for
bond rating. The preparation stage typically takes 45-60 days but could take as long as
90 days. Once the authorization package is ready, it goes back to the City Council for
approval to proceed with the bond sales. The bond sales typically begin two weeks after
approval and close within a day or two. Once the bond sale close s, it takes about two
weeks for the legal filing and the funds disbursed to the City.
KTS estimates the financing cost to issue a bond ranges between $4.2 million at 50%
financing to $8.5 million at 100% financing. A sample amortization schedule is in
attachment F. KTS will be invited to present a more detailed process to the City Council
and the community if this option is selected as a recommendation to move forward with
financing for the project.
General Municipal Obligation Bond (GOB)
This option is a tax levy to repay GOB issued to pay costs of procurement. This option
requires an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the electorates. Since this option requires a tax levy
on property owners to repay, this option is not considered a preferred option for this
project.
Financial Implications
Project Costs
As presented in the April 6 City Council staff report (Attachment A), the City has spent
almost $550,000 and has an outstanding commitment of almost $300,000 on the Ladera
Linda Community Center and Park project. Table 1 below illustrates a summary of the
year-to-date expenditures and commitments.
Preparation
45 -60 days
Council
Approval
Bond Sales
15 -30 days
E-25
Table 1: Year-to-Date Expenditures and Commitments
The estimated total construction cost for both the community center building and park
grounds is approximately $15.7 million. This cost includes the construction costs,
escalation costs, and soft costs associated with the project. The escalation cost of
approximately $550,000 is included in the estimate with a projected construction start
date of December 2021. The projected escalation cost per month is approximately
$31,000 for each month delay from the December 2021 start date.
Table 2 below provides a summary of the total estimated project cost based on the
project scope as approved by the Planning Commission.
YEAR-TO-DATE EXPENDITURES Amount Funding
Anderson Penna - Survey/Geotech 62,883$ 334 - Quimby
Richard Fisher and Associates - Master Plan 184,045$ 334 - Quimby
Priority One Environmental - Environmental Review 1,500$ 334 - Quimby
Willdan - traffic study for PC meeting 10,175$ 101 - General Fund
Michael Baker - CQEA analysis for PC meeting 3,599$ 101 - General Fund
Johnson Favaro - Design 263,131$ 334 - Quimby
Cal-Water - water pressure fire flow 525$ 334 - Quimby
Kosmont - Financial services 23,277$ 101 - General Fund
Total year-to-date expenditures 549,135$
OUTSTANDING COMMITMENTS
Anderson Penna - Survey/Geotech -$ 334 - Quimby
Johnson Favaro - Design 290,069$ 334 - Quimby
Michael Baker - CQEA analysis for PC meeting 8,006$ 101 - General Fund
Kosmont - Financial services 1,723$ 101 - General Fund
Total year-to-date expenditures 299,798$
TOTAL YTD PROJECT COSTS 848,933$
YTD PROJECT COSTS BY FUND Amount
334 - Quimby 802,153$
101 - General Fund 46,780$
TOTAL YTD PROJECT COSTS BY FUND 848,933$
E-26
Table 2: Total Estimated Construction Cost
Annual Maintenance and Operation
Staff estimates the operating and maintenance costs for the new facility and park to be
less than $240,000. The estimate includes staffing, supplies, utilities, maintenance,
playground equipment repair, and fuel modification. Due to the health emergency order
and the shutdown of park facilities, staffing and supplies for FY 2020-21 is lower than a
typical year. Staff anticipates that the new facility will require more staffing (as
previously reported) and supplies. However, staff anticipates that the newer facility will
not have the same maintenance needs and will more energy efficiency, so staff is
projecting these to remain flat or just a modest increase. Table 3 below illustrates the
increase of the operating and maintenance budget of the new facility to FY 2020 -21.
HARD COSTS Amount
Community Center (enclosed areas and covered areas) 5,700,000$
Sitework (demolition of existing buildings, site prep, etc.) 6,700,000$
Furnishings, fixtures, equipment (FFEs)300,000$
Sub-total of construction costs 12,700,000$
Construction contigency (5%)640,000$
Total estimated construction costs 13,340,000$
SOFT COSTS
Construction management (5%)640,000$
Construction inspection (7.5%)950,000$
Permitting (2%)250,000$
Hazardous materials abatement (1%)130,000$
Engineering support during construction (3%)380,000$
Total estimated soft costs 2,350,000$
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS 15,690,000$
E-27
Table 3: Proposed Operating & Maintenance Costs
Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) Fund
Staff has prepared a 10-year forecast (Table 4) for CIP Fund using the following
assumptions:
• Transfer-in is capped at $5.5 million and does not include the reduction of
Public Safety.
• TOT transfer in from the General Fund is for the annual CIP projects.
• Interest revenue is capped at $200K.
Based on these factor, CIP Fund is projected to increase by approximately $1.8 million
or 7.6% over the 10 years period.
Table 5: CIP 10-year Fund Balance Forecast
FY 2020-21 Proposed Increase
Salaries & benefits 47,400 127,300 79,900
Supplies 1,000 6,500 5,500
Utilities 28,200 27,700 (500)
Maintenance 115,000 76,800 (38,200)
TOTAL 191,600 238,300 46,700
Capital
Improvement
FY 2020-21
Capital
Improvement
FY 2021-22
Capital
Improvement
FY 2022-23
Capital
Improvement
FY 2023-24
Capital
Improvement
FY 2024-25
Beginning Fund Balance 7/1 25,344,808 24,098,510 23,674,010 23,874,010 24,074,010
Add: Revenues 205,224 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Add: Transfers in 1,117,200 2,075,500 2,975,000 4,105,000 5,010,000
Total Revenues 1,322,424 2,275,500 3,175,000 4,305,000 5,210,000
Less: Capital Project (2,568,722)(2,700,000) (2,975,000) (4,105,000) (5,010,000)
Less: Operating Expenses 0 - - - -
Less: Transfers Out 0 - - - -
Total Expenditures (2,568,722)(2,700,000) (2,975,000) (4,105,000) (5,010,000)
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 6/30 24,098,510 23,674,010 23,874,010 24,074,010 24,274,010
Reserve Policy 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Excess Reserve 19,098,510 18,674,010 18,874,010 19,074,010 19,274,010
Capital
Improvement
FY 2025-26
Capital
Improvement
FY 2026-27
Capital
Improvement
FY 2027-28
Capital
Improvement
FY 2028-29
Capital
Improvement
FY 2029-30
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Beginning Fund Balance 7/1 24,274,010 24,474,010 24,674,010 24,874,010 25,074,010 25,274,010
Add: Revenues 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Add: Transfers in 5,490,000 5,490,000 5,490,000 5,490,000 5,490,000 5,490,000
Total Revenues 5,690,000 5,690,000 5,690,000 5,690,000 5,690,000 5,690,000
Less: Capital Project (5,490,000) (5,490,000) (5,490,000) (5,490,000) (5,490,000) (5,490,000)
Less: Operating Expenses - - - - - -
Less: Transfers Out - - - - - -
Total Expenditures (5,490,000) (5,490,000) (5,490,000) (5,490,000) (5,490,000) (5,490,000)
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 6/30 24,474,010 24,674,010 24,874,010 25,074,010 25,274,010 25,474,010
Reserve Policy 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Excess Reserve 19,474,010 19,674,010 19,874,010 20,074,010 20,274,010 20,474,010
E-28
Financing Costs
Based on the estimated $15.7 million all-in cost of the project, and the projected operating
and maintenance expenses of approximated $238,000 per year, the financing cost for the
use of debt ranges between $2.4 million and $8.5 million depending the type, amount,
and term of the debt. The table below summarizes the cost of financing the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park Project.
Table 6: Summary of the Financing Costs
CONCLUSION:
As part of the FAC’s Work Plan and the City Council directions, Staff seeks FAC’s
recommendations on the Ladera Linda Community Park’s financing options and the
associated financial implications. The Committee’s recommendations and feedback will
be reported to the City Council on May 18, 2021.
50% Financing 75% Financing 100% Financing
10-years Loan 2,426,291
20-years Loan 4,878,573
30-years Loan 7,506,127
30-years Bond 4,290,150 6,393,000 8,500,950
E-29
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 05/06/2021
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to receive a report from the Finance Advisory
Subcommittee on the financing option recommendations for the Ladera Linda Park and
Community Center Project.
RECOMMENDED FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTION:
1. Review, discuss, and approve the Finance Advisory Subcommittee’s
recommendations for financing options on the Ladera Linda Park and Community
Center Project and direct Staff to forward the recommendations to the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Trang Nguyen, Director of Finance
REVIEWED BY: George Lewis, Finance Advisory Committee Vice-Chair
John MacAllister, Finance Advisory Committee Member
Kevin Yourman, Finance Advisory Committee Member
APPROVED BY: Same as above
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Finance Forecast (page A-1)
B. iBank Amortization Schedule (page B-1)
BACKGROUND:
On April 22, 2021, the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) held a special meeting to
review and discuss the financing options for the Ladera Linda Park and Community
Center Project. At the conclusion of the meeting, FAC formed two Subcommittees to
review the financing options and operating financial impacts of the project. The
Subcommittee Members for the financing options are Vice-Chair Lewis, Member
MacAllister, and Member Yourman. The operating financial impacts of the project will be
reviewed by Member Vlaco and Member Seal. Also, the Subcommittees were asked to
bring back recommendations for FAC’s review and consideration at a special meeting
on May 6, 2021.
E-30
On April 27, 2021, Member MacAllister and Member Yourman met with Director Nguyen
to discuss various options and ideas related to financing options. At the conclusion of
the meeting, Member MacAllister and Member Yourman recommended the following:
• Use up to 50% of the American Rescue Plan Act funding for the project.
• Use any available funding from Quimby Fund for the project.
• Use Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) Fund to fund 50% of the project .
balance
• Finance 50% of the remaining balance with iBank.
• Establish a plan to replenish the CIP Fund:
o Private funding campaign
o Interest earnings
o General Fund surplus
o Operating revenues from Ladera Linda
The recommendations were shared with Vice-Chair Lewis on April 28, 2021 and Vice-
Chair is in agreement with the recommendations across the board. The only suggestion
that Vice-Chair Lewis suggested is to expand the fund balance change, which shows up
as only one line in the annual report, to show all affected funds. By layering in first the
expected $855,000 of annual repayment for the Park, and then imagining the Civic
center, Vice-Chair Lewis suggested that this would show the reduction in the "change in
net position" line, or basically the city's gain/loss line for the year.
DISCUSSION:
I. Financing Options Overview
As presented at the April 6, 2021 City Council meeting, the total, all -in, estimated project
cost is $15.7 million. The financing Subcommittee’s recommendation to fund the project
includes a combination of restricted funds, CIP Fund, and a loan to finance the Ladera
Linda Park and Community Center Project. There was an agreement amongst the
Subcommittee Members that the use of restricted funds for the project should be
considered before using CIP Fund and financing options.
Currently, the two restricted funds that the City can consider are the anticipated funds
from the upcoming American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and Quimby Fund. The estimated
funding from ARPA for the City is approximately $7.8 million. The estimate d fund balance
in Quimby Fund on June 30, 2021 is approximately $943,000. The financing
Subcommittee is recommending using up to 50% of ARPA and all the available funds
from the Quimby Fund for this project. Table 1 below is summary of the Subcommittee’s
recommended financing options and a detailed explanation of the recommendations is
provided next.
E-31
Table 1: Ladera Linda Funding Summary
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
The ARPA was approved by Congress and subsequently signed into law by President
Biden on March 11, 2021. The relief package provides funding in several areas such as
state and local aid, education, rental assistance, and transit. Based on the preliminary
information that the City received from the Government Finance Officers Association and
the League of California Cities, the City’s allocation under the state and local fiscal aid of
$350 billion is estimated to be at $7.8 million. Based on the most current information,
eligible uses may include:
• Revenue replacement for the provision of government services to the extent the
reduction in revenue due the COVID-19 public health emergency relative to
revenues collected in the most recent fiscal year prior to the emergency.
• Premium pay for essential workers
• Assistance to small businesses, households, and hard-hit industries, and
economic recovery
• Investments in water, sewer and broadband infrastructure.
The financing Subcommittee recommended using up to 50% of the allocation from the
ARPA to fund the project based on the following reasons:
• Project is ready and eligible for ARPA funds under revenue replacement.
o Due to the sudden revenue loss from the Transient Occupancy Tax
(TOT) over the last 18 months, the City may use ARPA funds for the
purpose of revenue replacement. As illustrated on Table 2 below, the
City’s estimated revenue loss is $4.7 million.
o Since over 90% of the City’s TOT is transferred to the CIP to fund
capital projects, it would be an opportunity to utilize this grant and
replace the revenue loss in CIP caused by the pandemic.
o Additionally, by applying for the revenue replacement section of the
ARPA, the City may have more control on how funds can be u sed
for capital projects. Whereas the other eligible uses are restricted for
Funding Description Amount
ARPA Fund $3,908,500 25%
Quimby Fund 943,500 6%
CIP Fund 5,338,000 34%
iBank Loan 5,500,000 35%
Total Funding $15,690,000
E-32
a specific purpose (i.e. infrastructure is listed for water, sewer, and
broadband).
• Timing.
o The funding for ARPA must be spent by December of 2024. Based
on the current staffing capacity and the scheduled projects from the
5-year CIP presented to the City Council on April 12, 2021, it would
seem unattainable to schedule additional capital projects and spend
more than 50% of the ARPA funds by 2024.
Table 2: Estimated Revenue Losses
Quimby Fund
The Quimby Fund is a restricted fund for parks and recreation usage, therefore, the
Ladera Linda project is an eligible use of funds . The revenue sources for this fund are
from developer fees and dedication of land for park and recreation purposes. At the
beginning of FY 2020-21, Quimby Fund has a fund balance of almost $1.1 million and
projected to end the year with just over $943,000. The financing Subcommittee
recommended to use all available funds in Quimby CIP Fund.
Capital Infrastructure Program Fund
The Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) Fund is the primary funding source for the City’s
capital projects. At the start of FY 2020-21, CIP has a fund balance of over $25 million.
This fund is estimated to end the year with $24.1 million in fund balance. The City Council
Reserve Policy requires CIP Fund to maintain a reserve of $5 million, leaving the fund
with an excess reserve of over $19 million.
Staff reviewed the total CIP projects funded by CIP and other Special Revenue Funds in
the last three fiscal years. As shown in tables below, less than 50% of the budget for
capital projects was spent by June 30. When reviewing the CIP fund only, less than 40%
of budget was spent by June 30, with an average of $3.3 million spent from FY 2018-19
to FY 2020-21.
TOTAL
REVENUE
LOSSES
FY 18-19
Actuals
FY 19-20
Actuals
FY 19-20
Losses
FY 20-21
YE Est.
FY 20-21
Losses
TOT (4,681,195) 5,645,497 3,909,799 (1,735,698) 2,700,000 (2,945,497)
Sales tax (1,186,720) 2,661,181 2,163,342 (497,839) 1,972,300 (688,881)
Permits & fees (718,290) 2,217,106 1,916,822 (300,284) 1,799,100 (418,006)
Business License (280,418) 945,792 896,166 (49,626) 715,000 (230,792)
Interest Earnings (214,586) 366,409 358,232 (8,177) 160,000 (206,409)
Rental/Leases (702,382) 478,729 189,076 (289,653) 66,000 (412,729)
PVIC Sales (174,708) 137,551 92,494 (45,057) 7,900 (129,651)
TOTAL (7,958,299) 12,452,265 9,525,931 (2,926,334) 7,420,300 (5,031,965)
E-33
Table 3a: FY 2018-19 CIP Actuals
Table 3b: FY 2019-20 CIP Actuals
FY 2018-19 FY 2018-19 FY 2018-19 % SPENT
FUND FUND DESCRIPTION BUDGET REV. BUDGET ACTUAL REV. BUDGET
202 GAS TAX - - - 0.00%
211 1911 ACT STREET LIGHTING - 1,523,276 862,315 56.61%
212 BEAUTIFICATION - 405,585 378,754 93.38%
215 PROPOSITION C 500,000 1,100,000 639,011 58.09%
216 PROPOSITION A 500,000 500,000 44,108 8.82%
220 MEASURE R - 2,550,000 2,254,152 88.40%
225 ABALONE COVE SEWER DISTRICT - - - 0.00%
228 DONOR RESTRICTED CONTRIBUTION - 238,409 137,683 57.75%
310 CDBG - 361,683 193,586 53.52%
330 CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURES PROJEC 7,105,100 8,424,151 3,291,424 39.07%
331 FEDERAL GRANTS - - - 0.00%
332 STATE GRANTS - 965,645 408,060 42.26%
334 QUIMBY PARK DEVELOPMENT - 1,026,436 145,474 14.17%
340 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS - - - 0.00%
TOTAL CIP 8,105,100 17,095,184 8,354,567 48.87%
FY 2019-20 FY 2019-20 FY 2019-20 % SPENT
FUND FUND DESCRIPTION BUDGET REV. BUDGET ACTUAL REV. BUDGET
202 GAS TAX 1,500,000 2,215,166 285,516 12.89%
211 1911 ACT STREET LIGHTING - 592,148 509,249 86.00%
212 BEAUTIFICATION - - - 0.00%
215 PROPOSITION C 640,000 1,111,401 698,806 62.88%
216 PROPOSITION A 450,000 1,155,267 458,736 39.71%
220 MEASURE R 700,000 1,256,006 72,167 5.75%
225 ABALONE COVE SEWER DISTRICT - 450,000 - 0.00%
228 DONOR RESTRICTED CONTRIBUTION - - - 0.00%
310 CDBG 150,600 346,095 211,806 61.20%
330 CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURES PROJEC 9,917,000 13,012,768 4,652,908 35.76%
331 FEDERAL GRANTS - - - 0.00%
332 STATE GRANTS - 557,206 277,373 49.78%
334 QUIMBY PARK DEVELOPMENT - 846,624 545,813 64.47%
340 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS - - - 0.00%
TOTAL CIP 13,357,600 21,542,681 7,712,375 35.80%
E-34
Table 3c: FY 2019-20 CIP Actuals
Based on the next ten (10) year forecast for transfers from General Fund to CIP Fund,
the average transfers is estimated at over $3.4 million from FY 2022 -23 to FY 2030-31
(Attachment A). The estimated transfer amount includes the estimated reduction of $2
million from the public safety increases. Therefore, the financing Subcommittee is
comfortable with making the recommendation of using the about $5.3 million in fund
balance in CIP to fund the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project.
iBank Loan Process
The Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISFR) Program with iBank is a low-cost public
financing to state and local government. ISRF financing is available between $50,000 to
$25 million with the loan terms up to a maximum of 30 years or the useful life of the
project.
FY 2020-21 FY 2020-21 FY 2020-21 YTD % SPENT
FUND FUND DESCRIPTION BUDGET REV. BUDGET ACTUAL REV. BUDGET
202 GAS TAX - 1,899,490 1,619,127 85.24%
211 1911 ACT STREET LIGHTING 342,000 408,540 82,735 20.25%
212 BEAUTIFICATION - - - 0.00%
215 PROPOSITION C 945,000 950,379 2,694 0.28%
216 PROPOSITION A - 647,530 463,842 71.63%
220 MEASURE R 450,000 1,033,802 364,626 35.27%
225 ABALONE COVE SEWER DISTRICT - - - 0.00%
228 DONOR RESTRICTED CONTRIBUTION - - - 0.00%
310 CDBG 150,600 338,999 20,969 6.19%
330 CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURES PROJEC 2,521,000 3,767,094 761,469 20.21%
331 FEDERAL GRANTS - - - 0.00%
332 STATE GRANTS - 220,826 49,208 22.28%
334 QUIMBY PARK DEVELOPMENT - 300,790 14,740 4.90%
340 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS - - - 0.00%
TOTAL CIP 4,408,600 9,567,448 3,379,410 35.32%
E-35
Below is a process timeline to obtain a ISFR loan with iBank.
The first step is preliminary review where iBank’s credit committee reviews the City’s
financials and project to ensure that the financing complies with their underwriting
criteria. Once the credit committee approves the project, the City will receive an
invitation to apply for the loan. At that time, staff will bring forward a resolution to the
City Council to proceed with the loan application. iBank will work with staff to draft the
resolution for the City Council and assist with the application and the preparation of the
staff report for the iBank’s Board of Directors. Once the board approves the loan, their
legal counsel will prepare the legal documents to fund the loan.
The table below summarized the financing costs and annual payment between the two
terms.
Table 4: iBank Financing Summary
Description 10-year 15-year
Annual payment $635,500 $452,000
Total interest 761,000 1.14 M
Total service fees 94,100 139,600
Total payments 6.35M 6.78M
Total costs of financing $855,000 $1.28M
Prelimary Review
2 to 4 weeks
Receive an Invitation
to apply
Completed
Application and
Board Approval
60 to 90 days
E-36
Replenishing the CIP Fund
Besides reviewing, evaluating, and providing a recommendation for the financing options
for the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project, the financing Subcommittee
also recommended the following options to replenish the use of CIP Fund:
• Interest earnings from CIP’s fund balance.
• Additional transfers from the General Fund from surplus.
• Private funding.
Interest Earnings
Over the last two years, CIP Fund has earned almost $1 million in interest earnings. In
FY 2018-19, the interest earned is $509,000 and $471,000 in FY 2019-20. For the current
fiscal year, the estimated interest earnings are approximately $300,0000. The
Subcommittee recommends using the interest earning to replenish the fund balance. Staff
has taken a conservative approach and projected a flat $200,000 in interest earnings in
the forecast model. This is to account for the timing of the disbursement of funds on the
project compared to the interest earning from the loan disbursement and the ARPA
allocation. The Subcommittee has also supported this estimate.
Additional Transfers from the General Fund
Typically, in December, the Finance Department brings forward a staff report on the City’s
unaudited actuals of the previous fiscal year. This report highlights any surplus/deficit in
the General Fund, revenues minus expenditures. Looking back at the last four years, the
General Fund ended year with a surplus ranging from $223,000 to $1.9 million. The
estimated surplus for FY 2020-21 as presented at the budget workshop is over $800,000.
Table 9: Five-Year History of the General Fund Surplus
*FY 2020-21 surplus is an estimate based on the mid-year report.
Based on this information, the Subcommittee recommends transferring a portion of the
surplus calculated at year-end to be transferred to the CIP Fund to replenish the fund
balance. For the purpose of the model, Staff used $200,000 as the additional transfer
from the General Fund, which is the lowest surplus over five years. The Subcommittee
also supported this estimate.
FY 2020-21 FY 2019-20 FY 2018-19 FY 2017-18 FY 2016-17
Revenues 27,978,100 29,499,005 31,911,048 30,682,619 29,449,666
Expenditures (27,122,785) (28,538,827) (29,201,461) (29,429,062) (27,692,362)
PO Carry-forward - (167,175) (341,432) (715,164) (963,643)
Continuing appropriation - (569,400) (400,000) (300,000) (415,000)
Surplus 855,315 223,603 1,968,155 238,393 378,661
E-37
Private Funding
Moreover, the Subcommittee also recommended the use of private funding to replenish
the CIP fund balance. If the FAC approves, the recommendation of the Subcommittee is
to look into working with a consultant to build a plan. The approach for this
recommendation would be a more inclusive approach by having a funding program for
the City’s various capital and beautification projects. The private funding will include a
donor wall and naming rights to the buildings, parks, and playground. Any donation
received will go directly to CIP Fund to replenish the shortfall of over $9 million.
II. Financial Implications
To assist the Subcommittee with the recommendations that are presented to FAC tonight,
Staff has prepared various scenarios to review the financial impact on the City to
undertake this project. The table below provides a summary of the scenarios that were
discussed. The details of the different scenarios are available in attachment A.
Table 5: Summary of Financial Impacts
After meeting with Subcommittee Member MacAllister and Member Yourman , Staff was
asked to prepare two additional scenarios based on the following:
• Use up to 50% of the American Rescue Plan Act funding for the project.
• Use any available funding from Quimby Fund for the project.
• Use Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) Fund for 50% of the remaining balance
or approximately 34% of the total project cost.
• Use iBank loan for the other 50% of the remaining balance or approximately 35%
of the total project cost with a 10-years term.
• Use iBank loan for the other 50% of the remaining balance or approximately 35%
of the total project cost with a 15-years term.
Scenario 1
Financing
100%
Scenario 2
Financing
75%
Scenario 3
Financing
50%
Initial fund for Ladera Linda from CIP fund - 3,922,500 7,845,000
Average Annual payment 1,789,570 1,376,600 905,240
Use of CIP fund 16,952,700 12,823,000 8,109,400
Use of Quimby fund 943,000 943,000 943,000
Use of ARPA fund 5,410,100 4,161,600 2,739,700
Shortfall in replenishing CIP fund (10,285,600) (11,326,900) (11,957,700)
Total increase/(decrease) in fund balance (8,638,100) (9,649,400) (10,246,000)
% of increase/(decrease) in fund balance -33.92% -37.89% -40.24%
E-38
Based on the directions, Table 6 is a summary of the financial impacts on the two
additional scenarios that the financing Subcommittee requested.
Table 6: Summary of Additional Financial Impacts
Table 7 below is the revised total estimated project costs including the financing costs
for 10 years and 15 years. In summary, the financing costs for the 10-year loan is
estimated at $855,400, an increase of 5% to the original estimated project cost of $15.7
million. The annual payment for the 10-year loan is $635,540. The 15-year loan
financing costs is estimated at $1.3 million or an 8% increase to the original estimated
project cost. The annual payment for the 15-year loan is $452,000. Both options require
the use of ARPA, Quimby fund, and the CIP Fund excess reserve. The 10 years option
will reduce the CIP fund balance by approximately $8.7 million while the 15-years will
reduce CIP fund balance by almost $8.3 million. Both options in scenario 4 will leave the
CIP Fund with over $16 million in fund balance (Attachment A).
Scenario 4
Financing
35% 10-year
Scenario 4
Financing
35% 15-year
Initial fund for Ladera Linda from CIP fund 5,338,000 5,338,000
Average Annual payment 635,540 452,000
Use of CIP fund 6,355,400 6,780,000
Use of Quimby fund 943,500 943,500
Use of ARPA fund 3,908,500 3,908,500
Shortfall in replenishing CIP fund (9,493,400) (9,918,000)
Total increase/(decrease) in fund balance (8,658,900) (8,293,500)
% of increase/(decrease) in fund balance -34.00% -31.09%
E-39
Table 7: Revised Total Estimated Project Costs
CONCLUSION:
In summary, the financing Subcommittee and Director Nguyen met on April 27, 2021 to
discuss the financing options for the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project.
Based on the discussion amongst Subcommittee Member Lewis, Member MacAllister,
and Member Yourman, and the additional analysis provided by Director Nguyen, the
Subcommittee recommends the following:
• Use up to 50% of the American Rescue Plan Act funding for the project.
Currently estimated at $3.9 million.
• Use any available funding from Quimby Fund for the project. Currently estimated
at $943,000.
• Use Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) Fund to fund 50% of the remaining
balance of the project. Currently estimated at use of CIP Fund is $5.3 million
• Finance $5.5 million or 35% of the total project cost with iBank for 10-years.
The Subcommittee and Staff are seeking for FAC’s feedback and recommendations on
the financing options presented tonight and direct Staff to forward the agreed upon
recommendations to the City Council.
HARD COSTS
10-years
Amount
15-years
Amount
Community Center (enclosed areas and covered areas) 5,700,000$ 5,700,000$
Sitework (demolition of existing buildings, site prep, etc.) 6,700,000 6,700,000
Furnishings, fixtures, equipment (FFEs)300,000 300,000
Sub-total of construction costs 12,700,000 12,700,000
Construction contigency (5%)640,000 640,000
Total estimated construction costs 13,340,000$ 13,340,000$
SOFT COSTS
Construction management (5%)640,000 640,000
Construction inspection (7.5%)950,000 950,000
Permitting (2%)250,000 250,000
Hazardous materials abatement (1%)130,000 130,000
Engineering support during construction (3%)380,000 380,000
Total estimated soft costs 2,350,000$ 2,350,000$
FINANCING COSTS
Interest 761,300 1,140,300
Annual fees 94,100 139,600
Total estimated financing costs 855,400$ 1,279,900$
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 16,545,400$ 16,969,900$
E-40
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 4:22 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Cost
Here’s one I missed.
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: cjruona@cox.net <cjruona@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 3:28 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Cost
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I read in today’s Torrance Daily Breeze that the cost of the Ladera Linda Community Center,
recently approved by the city council is expected to be $15,700,000. I expect by the time it is
built that figure will be considerably higher. It always is. The Rancho Palos Verdes budget for
fiscal year 2020‐2021 totaled $37,979,100 in expenditures. That means the projected cost of
Ladera Linda will total 41.4% of this fiscal year’s expenditures. This is out of line & extravagant
for a city that is supposed to take pride in following a conservative fiscal policy. The city
council will now determine how to finance this. With the recent reduction in tax revenues due
to Covid‐19 business closures this will take imagination and should be carefully scrutinized. It
E-41
2
is disappointing that RPV’s commitment to fiscal prudence has been abandon. Especially
troubling is councilman Ken Dyda’s vote in support of this effort. He is a city founder who I
thought backed fiscal responsibility. That is not possible with expensive projects like this. I
have lived in RPV for 38 years & believe that the majority of people in our city do not know
anything about Ladera Linda, much less where it is located. Accordingly, they will not visit the
site in the future & this will be an under used facility. This is an inflated cash commitment for
few residents. Finally, this is being sold as something for the east side residents since they do
not have a facility like this. The east side community is basically along Palos Verdes Drive East,
primarily between Marymount College to just beyond Miraleste Intermediate School. Ladera
Linda is just off of Palos Verdes Drive South, in the south side of our city.
C. J. Ruona
Rancho Palos Verdes
E-42
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Wednesday, April 21, 2021 1:35 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Park Project Funding. May 4, 2021 City Council Meeting
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: Ann Muscat <amuscat@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 2:17 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Project Funding. May 4, 2021 City Council Meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Council Member:
It was with disappointment that we noted the Council’s approval of the Ladera Linda Park Project as presented at the
last council meeting. In our minds this represents a continued disregard of the surrounding community’s concerns
about the size of the project. We write now to ask you to please consider your fiduciary responsibility to the city very
carefully before voting to approve the budget for the project as presented.
Due to the Covid pandemic this time is particularly fraught with uncertainty for the city and is likely to result in a
revenue shortfall. Given the many financial commitments and aspirations of the city—the on‐going response to the
Portuguese Bend land slide, the desire for a new city hall, significant and growing commitments to RPVs CalPers
E-43
2
retirement program—just to name a few, it seems unwise to commit what could eventually be upwards of $20 million to
a community center project whose size and scope has been questioned from the beginning.
It is our understanding that the cost estimate provided by staff is not an all‐in cost that has been carefully priced out by
contractors. It represents instead an estimate by the architect with some costs not yet priced out at all, for example
security such as lighting, fencing, gates, landscaping etc. will be determined later by consultants to recommend what
items to include and at what cost. Thus the $15.7 million that you will be voting on is likely to represent a low end
figure. As it is $5.7 million is budgeted for the building’s cost, which for a 6,790 square foot building represents
$839/square foot, a pretty rich budget for a modest neighborhood facility. We would make the same comment about
the $6.7 million indicated for site work.
As the overall number increases it stands to reason that the pressure to rent the facility out will increase to recoup
the costs expended, which will result in the kind of traffic and congestion that many in the neighborhood have been
concerned about from the beginning.
We would ask the City Council to carefully consider the budget proposed and withhold approval until all the costs are
understood and a reasonable budget is established. And as 25 year residents of the community we would ask you to do
this understanding all of the other financial resources and commitments of the city at this time.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Ann Muscat
Jack Baldelli
E-44
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Wednesday, April 21, 2021 1:35 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: kmc5140@aol.com <kmc5140@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 2:09 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Date: April 20, 2021
To: City Council Meeting
Re: Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
E-45
2
My name is Kim McCarthy and I am a 8 year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. I am writing
this letter to recommend that the City Council reject staff’s recommendation to spend $15.7
million on the proposed redevelopment of the Ladera Linda Park.
The City is presently facing a short fall in revenues as a result of the pandemic. This
project could very well place the City in a shaky financial position given the city’s higher
priority items. The highest priority being the large expenditure required to slow the
Portuguese Bend landslide that is even now costing the city $1 million a year just to maintain
PV Drive South. In addition the City is facing RPV's CALpers retirement plan cost at a
present estimated of $25 million. Finally, of major concern is the increase in vehicle crimes
that the city is presently experiencing. These do not even take into consideration the cost
of a new city hall.
What is of concern is that the cost estimate provided by staff does not reflect the true cost
of the project and could ultimately approach $20 million. The architect used some algorithm
to get a very rough idea for the total cost. There was never any actual breakdown for costs
for the various items listed in security; lighting, fencing, gates, landscaping etc. The report
states that they will hire consultants to recommend what items to include and at what
cost. That tells you that the present cost is not the "all in" cost.
The City Council should vote against the funding of the project until the Council establishes
a target cost of the total project consistent with the present financial position of the city and
in consideration to the funding of higher priority projects.
Once the target is established staff should be required to provide the Council with a cost
breakdown for everything to be included in this project within the target cost. Without
accurate costs it's easy to anticipate the need to start "paying for itself" once it's open.
What we do not want is for the City to find itself needing to encourage frequent rentals of
the building and park by outside groups in order to pay for its upkeep after the fact.
Until these steps are taken we recommend that the Council reject staff’s recommendation.
Kim McCarthy
134 Seawall Road, RPV
E-46
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Wednesday, April 21, 2021 1:34 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Letter of objection for the funding of the Ladera Linda Community Center
Attachments:Ladera Linda community center rejection letter.docx
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: Lori Barr <lmu95x2@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 2:39 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Letter of objection for the funding of the Ladera Linda Community Center
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Madam or Sir,
Please find attached my letter rejecting the funding of the Ladera Linda community
center.
Thank you,
Lori Barr
3678 Vigilance Drive
E-47
May 4, 2021 City Council Meeting
Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
My name is Lori Barr, and I am a 7-year resident of the Ladera Linda community in Rancho Palos
Verdes. I am writing this letter to strongly urge the City Council reject staff’s recommendation
to spend $15.7 million on the proposed redevelopment of the Ladera Linda Park.
The City is presently facing a shortfall in revenues as a result of the pandemic. This project could
very well place the City in a shaky financial position given the city’s higher priority items. The
highest priority being the large expenditure required to slow the Portuguese Bend landslide that
is even now costing the city $1 million a year just t o maintain PV Drive South. In addition, the
City is facing RPV's CALpers retirement plan cost at a present estimated of $25 million. Finally,
of major concern is the increase in vehicle crimes that the city is presently experiencing. These
do not even take into consideration the cost of a new city hall.
What is of concern is that the cost estimate provided by staff does not reflect the true cost of the
project and could ultimately approach $20 million. The architect used an algorithm to get a rough
idea for the total cost. There was never any actual breakdown for costs for the various items
listed in security; lighting, fencing, gates, landscaping etc. The report states that they will hire
consultants to recommend what items to include and at what cost . That tells you that the present
cost is not the "all in" cost.
The City Council should vote AGAINST the funding of the project until the Council establishes a
target cost of the total project consistent with the present financial position of the city a nd in
consideration to the funding of higher priority projects.
Once the target is established, staff should be required to provide the Council with a cost
breakdown for everything to be included in this project within the target cost. Without accurate
costs it's easy to anticipate the need to start "paying for itself" once it's open.
What we do not want is for the City to find itself needing to encourage frequent rentals of the
building and park by outside groups in order to pay for its upkeep after the fact.
Until these steps are taken we recommend that the Council reject staff’s recommendation.
____Lori F Barr_________________________
Name
____3678 Vigilance Dr. RPV_______________
Address
E-48
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Wednesday, April 21, 2021 1:35 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Project
Attachments:Ladera Linda Letter.docx
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: Michael Tocicki <michael@premierinservices.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 12:50 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello
Please see attached letter.
Thank you
E-49
2
Best Regards,
Michael A. Tocicki
Executive General Adjuster
PREMIER Insurance Services, LLC
p
215-620-5649
f
619-639-1115
w
premierinservices.com
NEW YORK • LOS ANGELES • MIAMI • BOSTON
No representative of Premier Insurance Services LLC (“Premier”), or any consultant retained on behalf of the insurer(s) working with “Premier”, has any authority
either to bind the insurer(s) to coverage, or to interpret, waive, or alter any of the terms, conditions, or limitations of the policy. The insurer (s) reserves the right
to make all decisions concerning coverage. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing that “Premier” communicates to you with respect to this matter constitutes any
decision of any kind with respect to any coverage of any kind or an interpretation, waiver or alteration of any policy term, condition or limitation of any insurance
policy.
E-50
May 4, 2021 City Council Meeting
Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
We, Michael & Denise Tocicki, are residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. We live on
Phantom Drive. We are writing this letter to recommend that the City Council reject the
staff’s recommendation to spend $15.7 million on the proposed redevelopment of the
Ladera Linda Park.
The City is presently facing a shortfall in revenues as a result of the pandemic. This
project could very well place the City in a desperate financial position given the city’s
higher priority items. The highest priority being the large expenditure required to slow the
Portuguese Bend landslide that is even now costing the city $1 million a year just to
maintain PV Drive South. In addition the City is facing RPV's CALpers retirement plan
cost at a present estimated of $25 million. Finally, of major concern is the increase in
vehicle crimes that the city is presently experiencing. These do not even take into
consideration the cost of a new city hall.
What is of concern is that the cost estimate provided by staff does not reflect the true cost
of the project and could ultimately approach $20 million. The architect used some
algorithm to get a very rough idea for the total cost. There was never any actual
breakdown for costs for the various items listed in security; lighting, fencing, gates,
landscaping etc. The report states that they will hire consultants to recommend what items
to include and at what cost. That tells you that the present cost is not the "all in" cost.
The City Council should vote against the funding of the project until the Council
establishes a target cost of the total project consistent with the present financial position
of the city and in consideration to the funding of higher priority projects.
Once the target is established staff should be required to provide the Council with a cost
breakdown for everything to be included in this project within the target cost. Without
accurate costs it's easy to anticipate the need to start "paying for itself" once it's open.
What we do not want is for the City to find itself needing to encourage frequent rentals of
the building and park by outside groups in order to pay for its upkeep after the fact.
Until these steps are taken we recommend that the Council reject staff’s
recommendation.
________Michael & Denise Tocicki_____________________
Name
Phantom Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes
_________________________________
Address
E-51
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Wednesday, April 21, 2021 1:34 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Construction Project
Attachments:Ladera_Linda_project.docx
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: mark dehaan <madehaan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 10:36 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Construction Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Please see the attached document regarding the funding of the Ladera Linda Project.
Sincerely,
Mark DeHaan
E-52
2
17 year- Ladera Linda resident
E-53
May 4, 2021 City Council Meeting
Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
My name is Mark DeHaan and I am a 17 year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. I am
writing this letter to recommend that the City Council reject staff’s recommendation to
spend $15.7 million on the proposed redevelopment of the Ladera Linda Park.
The City is presently facing a short fall in revenues as a result of the pandemic. This
project could very well place the City in a shaky financial position given the city’s higher
priority items. The highest priority being the large expenditure required to slow the
Portuguese Bend landslide that is even now costing the city $1 million a year just to
maintain PV Drive South. In addition the City is facing RPV's CALpers retirement plan
cost at a present estimated of $25 million. Finally, of major concern is the increase in
vehicle crimes that the city is presently experiencing. These do not even take into
consideration the cost of a new city hall.
What is of concern is that the cost estimate provided by staff does not reflect the true
cost of the project and could ultimately approach $20 million. The architect used some
algorithm to get a very rough idea for the total cost. There was never any actual
breakdown for costs for the various items listed in security; lighting, fencing, gates,
landscaping etc. The report states that they will hire consultants to recommend what
items to include and at what cost. That tells you that the present cost is not the "all in"
cost.
The City Council should vote against the funding of the project until the Council
establishes a target cost of the total project consistent with the present financial position
of the city and in consideration to the funding of higher priority projects.
Once the target is established staff should be required to provide the Council with a cost
breakdown for everything to be included in this project within the target cost. Without
accurate costs it's easy to anticipate the need to start "paying for itself" once it's open.
What we do not want is for the City to find itself needing to encourage frequent rentals
of the building and park by outside groups in order to pay for its upkeep after the fact.
Until these steps are taken we recommend that the Council reject staff’s
recommendation.
Mark DeHaan
Name
3511 Heroic Drive
Address
E-54
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, April 26, 2021 8:58 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: patricia stenehjem <patsyanntoo@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 7:32 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
My name is Patricia Stenehjem, and I am a 47 year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. I am writing to recommend that the
City Council reject staff's recommendation to spend $15.7 million on the proposed redevelopment of the Ladera Linda
Park.
The City is presently facing a shortfall in revenues as a result of the pandemic. This project could very well place the City
in a shaky financial position, given the City's higher priority items, such as the large expenditure required to slow the
Portuguese Bend landslide, and the ongoing maintenance of PV Drive South. In my opinion, the money earmarked for
Ladera Linda would be better spent on upgrading and improving (or adding a new) city hall.
E-55
2
What else is of concern is that the cost estimate provided by staff does not reflect the true cost of the project. There was
never any breakdown for the various items listed in security: lighting, fencing,gates, landscaping, etc. The report states
that they will hire consultants to recommend what items to include, and at what cost.
The City Council should vote against the funding of the project until the Council establishes a target cost of the total
project consistent with the present financial position of the City, and in consideration of the funding of higher priority
projects. Once the target is established, staff should be required to provide the Council with a cost breakdown for
everything to be included in this project within the target cost. Until these steps are taken, I urge the Council to reject
staff's recommendation. Without accurate costs, it's also easy to anticipate the need for the Park to start "paying for itself"
once it's open, which would likely have a detrimental impact on surrounding neighborhoods.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Patricia Stenehjem
32215 Searaven Drive
E-56
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, April 26, 2021 3:03 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: May 4th City Council Meeting - Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: The Costleys <billmelandlindsey@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:38 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: May 4th City Council Meeting ‐ Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
My name is Bill Costley and I am a 20 year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. I am writing to recommend that the City
Council reject the staff’s recommendation to spend $15.7 million on the proposed redevelopment of the Ladera Linda
Park. The cost estimate provided by staff does not reflect the true cost of the project which will ultimately be closer to
$18‐20 million. The architect’s method to calculate costs only provided a rough idea of the total cost and there was never
any actual breakdown for costs associated with the various items listed for security, lighting, fencing, gates, landscaping,
etc. The report states that they will hire consultants to recommend what items to include and at what costs, which means
the recommended $15.7 million number is far from the total costs for this project. This is a ridiculous amount of money
E-57
2
that would be better spent on higher priority projects such as the Portuguese Bend Landslide abatement or the Civic
Center Project as opposed to a lavish community center and park that the majority of residents oppose.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bill Costley
Phantom Drive
E-58
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Tuesday, April 27, 2021 5:00 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Project
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: Colleen Teles <imcat58@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 4:57 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I am sad to learn about the cost to move forward with the Ladera Linda project, a project that will do little to improve
the overall quality of life in RPV. Ladera Linda is so far away from a vast majority of residents that I believe it will be
underused, as it was in its former incarnation. There were occasional classes held there, and of course, it is used
extensively as a soccer field, but I doubt that no matter what you do to the structure, it will not be utilized.
I'd say that now is not the time to move forward with such an expensive project. I'm sure Covid had a fiscal impact on
our city; let's get our current affairs in order before committing to spending money on a project that nobody really cares
about.
Lots of new families are moving into RPV, especially the Silver Spur; Basswood, Crest areas. Not too sure about the east
side. If you must spend money, why don't we do something to improve the quality of life here in RPV? A few new
classrooms at a distant site isn't going to cut it. Follow El Segundo's lead and create a great sports center, with a pool,
E-59
2
great baseball field, soccer field, etc. Or follow Torrance's example and build something similar to Wilson Park, which is
a huge benefit to the community. RPV is really lacking as far as nice parks go.
Our city is dying, as far as amenities go. We lost our mall, the parks are average, we have no pool nor community sports
center. The residents commonly refer to our city as the place to go to die, what with all the retirement communities
being built. Why are you letting this happen?
Colleen Teles
5433 Whitefox Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
E-60
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Tuesday, April 27, 2021 4:35 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: jdplatus <jdplatus@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 4:35 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Please vote NO on this project! We love the idea of being a quiet, conservative community without extra traffic and
parking.
This costly project will cost us more in taxes. We don’t Need this at all. Save money, our security, and our quiet
residential
community.
Judy Platus
jdplatus@cox.net
E-61
2
live in RPV
E-62
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Tuesday, April 27, 2021 5:04 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: klenders@cox.net <klenders@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 5:03 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Council,
Please listen to your residents, WE DO NOT WANT A $15 MILLION LADERA LINDA IMPROVEMENT. We don't want it. WE
DON'T WANT IT. Nor do we want a shuttle bringing visitors to the Preserve. WE DON'T WANT IT. We don't want you
posting videos on Youtube or Instagram inviting people to come to the peninsula. They have found it just fine without
your help. We cannot accommodate them. The road is dangerous. It's moving, MOVING. It's an ACTIVE landslide. Visitors
not familiar with the area are dying; on the road, and in the water. How many more makeshift memorials will we have to
watch be erected? There isn't adequate parking. There aren't adequate sidewalks. Please come to my home and watch
E-63
2
them liter, honk, make illegal screeching u turns, park in front of "No Parking" signs, run, bike, pee in our bushes, vomit
on our curbs, etc. I'll put on a pot of coffee so you can stay awhile and watch the horror show...
Thank you for listening,
Kristen Lenders
E-64
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Tuesday, April 27, 2021 5:28 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone - (310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-
19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some
employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please
schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted
directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our
response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Wold <annewold@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 5:27 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Our appreciation goes to the fiscally-
E-65
2
sensible council members Ms. Ferraro and Mr Bradley, who have stated their position to not support
a 15+ million dollar project in a quiet neighborhood. They are following their pre-election promises to
listen to their constituents and to retain RPV’s sensible budget expenditures.
They also recognize the surrounding neighborhood traffic which would be associated with such a
large project.
How do the remaining three council members plan to properly maintain our City when over 40% of
the entire budget is going to overbuild a facility? Surely hope we would not have an emergency
requiring funds in place.
Extremely disappointing to hear the stuff coming out of our City Council these days.
Anne & Richard Wold
50 year residents of RPV
E-66
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Wednesday, April 28, 2021 9:26 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda project
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: alfrew@cox.net <alfrew@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 9:26 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Councilmembers,
Please do not approve such an expensive project ... re‐look at something more reasonable.
Thank you,
Allan Frew
RPV
E-67
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Wednesday, April 28, 2021 8:13 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda cost
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: Bill Foster <billfost541@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 2:21 AM
To: Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: martycrna@gmail.com
Subject: Ladera Linda cost
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I was shocked after reading the PvP watch letter about the cost of the park project. I’m sure you have read it, but reread
it again. How can you honestly commit over40% of the cities yearly revenues for a questionable and unpopular project?
This is the most alarming part of the newsletter
The Cost
E-68
2
The Torrance Daily Breeze has reported that the cost of this
project is expected to be $15,700,000. By the time it is
completed this number will be bigger than that…it always is. To
give that large number context realize that the RPV budget for
fiscal year 2020-2021 totaled $37,979,100 in
expenditures. That means the projected cost of Ladera Linda is
41.4% of this fiscal year’s expenditures…for the entire
city! PVP Watch believes this is out of line for a city that is
supposed to pride itself in following a conservative fiscal policy.
On May 4th the city council will determine how to finance this
extravagance. With the recent reduction in tax revenues due to
Covid-19 business closures this will take imagination and
should be carefully scrutinized.
Bill Foster
32451 Searaven Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes
Sent from my iPad
E-69
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Friday, April 30, 2021 8:32 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda cost
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: MANSOOR ALYESHMERNI <alyesh@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 7:39 AM
To: grapecon@cox.net
Cc: Bill Foster <billfost541@gmail.com>; bill schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com>; Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com>;
martycrna@gmail.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Jessica Vlaco <jvlaco@yahoo.com>; Mickey Rodich
<mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Amanda Wong <kiwi_esq@hotmail.com>; Donald Bell
<dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ladera Linda cost
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
It reminds me of the old adage figures don’t lie but liars do figure.
As mentioned above there are significant infrastructure needs much greater than what’s being done here at a very big
expense.
What can we do at this point? Request a meeting?
E-70
2
M. "Elie" Alyeshmerni
Alyesh@aol.com
Cell 310 922‐7852
32443 Sea Raven Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
On Apr 30, 2021, at 5:43 AM, grapecon@cox.net wrote:
Cost per square foot less than George F. Canyon????? Well, I guess if you only consider building cost,
and use the roof area instead of the usable square footage, you can get to that figure ($5.08M / 13,370
square feet). But is that fair? How about using usable square footage in the denominator ($5.08M /
~6700 square feet = $760 per square foot), and now the cost per square foot is 150% of George F
Canyon. A design with a significant amount of glass, laid out in linear fashion to provide more
unnecessary ocean views, is not going to be a cost effective construction. Instead of putting in a modest
amount of glass, the city is instead putting a band aid on by adding large expensive security shutters,
which will only raise the cost further the more area of expensive glass they have to cover.
Regarding funding, how about applying ARPA funding to slide mitigation? Seems like that is in greater
need of “rescue.” Aren’t there other critical infrastructure needs, also? Our sewer, water, electricity,
and gas lines are 50+ years old…..no concerns there? How about undergrounding power lines to help
mitigate sources of wildfire? Even if there is good argument to use those funds for this park, that
doesn’t mean the city needs to spend $15.7M (or more) on this project. How about $5M‐$7M for the
project? Right size the building to 3 rooms, use more conventional construction, preserve existing large
foliage and only re‐landscape what is necessary, etc. I am sure we could have a very nice and functional
facility for that budget. And what about funding for the massive proposed Civic Center Project????
Also, the last line in Ara’s email is offensive in that it implies LL residents want nothing done: “ the
existing park grounds and building are a poor representation of Rancho Palos Verdes,
and do not support an enhanced quality of life for our residents.” We are not arguing that
nothing be done. We agree a new center and improving the grounds is a good idea. We just don’t agree
that a building of the proposed size is needed or wanted by the community, nor all the amenities clearly
designed to attract more visitors from greater distances. When we point out that opening up views in no
way affects the functionality of the community center or park, we get no response….because there is no
logical counter-argument. Does every major park in RPV have to have expansive views? Why not keep
the “nestled in the trees” community feel currently at Ladera Linda?
From: Bill Foster <billfost541@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 10:21 PM
To: Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; bill schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com>; Diane Mills
<dianebmills@gmail.com>; martycrna@gmail.com; CC <cc@rpvca.gov>; Jessica Vlaco
<jvlaco@yahoo.com>; Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Amanda Wong
<kiwi_esq@hotmail.com>; Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; Elie Alyeshmerni <Alyesh@aol.com>
Subject: Fwd: Ladera Linda cost
So guess the cost per square foot for Ladera Linda is less than George Canyon. Even though Ladera
Linda will cost 15 million dollars more to build,So that makes it all right.
E-71
3
So we are building this with reliance of the American Rescue Plan Act and other bailouts for funding to
build this . Does Ladera Linda need to be rescued? The city will be using an incredible amount of its
reserve and resources to build something that according to the residents of RPV, we don’t want.
I really don’t understand the motivation of our city leaders for supporting this.
Bill Foster
32451 Searaven Dr
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Date: April 29, 2021 at 2:53:17 PM PDT
To: Bill Foster <billfost541@gmail.com>, Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>, CC
<CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: martycrna@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda cost
Mr. Foster,
The City Council is in receipt of your email expressing your concerns
regarding the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project. Your
email will be provided to the City Council as part of the May 18 Staff
Report. Please note that the City Council will not be considering project
budget and financing alternatives on May 4, but rather on May 18.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight information on this project
taken from the April 6, 2021 City Council Staff Report on the City’s website
at the following link:
https://rpv.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id
=3900
As you may know, in the 1960s, the PVPUSD developed the project site
into the Ladera Linda Elementary school. The school operated until 1980,
when the City purchased the property and officially opened the park in
1982. From 1993 to 2011, a Montessori School leased several
classrooms on the site. Since 2011, the community center and park has
been exclusively used for park recreation purposes.
In 2013, the City Council commissioned an engineering firm to assess the
condition of all its public facilities, including Ladera Linda. That
assessment scored the Ladera Linda buildings as an “F” noting that the
following:
• Buildings/systems are at end of useful life: facing significant repair
and renovation costs
• Inefficient systems: Increased on-going utility costs and
maintenance
• Building area is larger than needed and therefore more costly to
maintain
E-72
4
• Code compliance – any renovation triggers accessibility and fire/life
safety upgrades to site and buildings
• Complex array of buildings creates nooks and crannies, numerous
blind spots and insecure site areas.
I am highlighting the above because it indicates that the existing buildings
are, among other things, essentially a financial liability for the City. To that
point, in 2016, the then-City Council proceeded to develop a master plan
for the property. Over the next few years, the project plans for the master
plan were reviewed extensively by the public including the adjacent
neighborhoods at several public workshops and meetings. The final
design was presented and accepted by the City Council in August 2019.
In terms of the community, our city prides itself on acres of protected open
space. Ladera Linda is the only park with a community center in the
eastern portion of the City and is almost 5 miles east of PVIC and 7.5
miles east of Hesse Park. There are very few City parks and no City
community centers in that part of RPV.
During public workshops and meetings with adjacent HOAs, many
residents noted that they were not inclined to drive to Hesse Park to
attend classes; they would prefer to attend classes in their local
neighborhood park. Ladera Linda is also the only City facility with a large
multi-purpose room located east of the landslide, one that could serve as
an evacuation center in case of a natural disaster.
There has recently been a comparison of the City’s estimated $15.7
million Ladera Linda project to the Rolling Hills Estates’ George F. Canyon
Nature Center project with a reported $1.7 million price tag. The April 6,
2021 Staff Report addressed this issue in depth. These are very different
projects as shown in the following staff report excerpt:
Table 7. Comparison between the George F Canyon Nature Center and
the Ladera Linda Community Center
<image001.png>
This table compares the building size, structural framed area, and
estimated costs without soft costs and contingency for both
buildings. This apples-to-apples comparison shows that the cost per
square foot of the George F. Canyon Nature Center is actually higher than
the Ladera Linda Community Center. Moreover, the Ladera Linda project
is a total rebuild of approximately 7 acres of the total 11-acre site.
In considering the breadth and scope of a City project such as Ladera
Linda, it is important to understand municipal budgeting. In simple terms,
the City’s budget is an operational plan on what is expected to be spent
during the year to deliver services to the community. That budget number
also represents the cash outflow related to the delivery of the services.
Ladera Linda is a capital project, and all capital projects are expended
over the life of the asset, not in the year or years that it was built and is
E-73
5
therefore not considered an operating expense. That said, to construct a
capital project in government, you need to understand the City’s cash
flow. At the end of March 2021, the City has a cash balance of $64.1
million in all of its funds (i.e. General Fund, CIP, Gas Tax, CDBG, Prop A,
Prop C, etc.). However, because this is a capital project, not affecting
general operations, the cost would be borne by the Capital Infrastructure
Program (CIP) Fund which has a cash balance of $25.5 million at the end
of March 2021 (the General Fund which supports services has a cash
balance of $22.8 million at the end of March 2021).
There are multiple ways the City could fund this project without impacting
operations or services. Based on the estimated project cost of $15.7
million, the City’s Finance Advisory Committee is currently working on
evaluating different financing options for this project. One option currently
being considered is using a mixture of the American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA) funding, Quimby Fund, CIP Fund, and financing. This option
would reduce the use of general operations funds so services are not
impacted nor taxes raised (which is not even under consideration). The
City has an estimated allocation of $7.8 million from the ARPA and just
under $1 million available from Quimby Fund.
The point in providing this information is to understand that the existing
park and community center are a valuable City asset that needs to be
maintained similar to other City assets, like roads, trails, and critical
infrastructure. If not maintained, the cost to the City may likely exceed the
estimated project cost in the long term. Lastly, the existing park grounds
and building are a poor representation of Rancho Palos Verdes, and do
not support an enhanced quality of life for our residents.
I hope this has been helpful. Please feel free to reach out to me with any
follow-up questions.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
___________________________________
<image002.jpg>
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
E-74
6
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.
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
From: Bill Foster <billfost541@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 2:21 AM
To: Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: martycrna@gmail.com
Subject: Ladera Linda cost
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I was shocked after reading the PvP watch letter about the cost of the park project. I’m
sure you have read it, but reread it again. How can you honestly commit over40% of the
cities yearly revenues for a questionable and unpopular project?
This is the most alarming part of the newsletter
The Cost
The Torrance Daily Breeze has reported that the cost of this
project is expected to be $15,700,000. By the time it is
completed this number will be bigger than that…it always is. T
give that large number context realize that the RPV budget for
fiscal year 2020-2021 totaled $37,979,100 in
expenditures. That means the projected cost of Ladera Linda
41.4% of this fiscal year’s expenditures…for the entire
city! PVP Watch believes this is out of line for a city that is
supposed to pride itself in following a conservative fiscal policy
On May 4th the city council will determine how to finance this
extravagance. With the recent reduction in tax revenues due t
Covid-19 business closures this will take imagination and
should be carefully scrutinized.
Bill Foster
32451 Searaven Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes
Sent from my iPad
E-75
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Friday, April 30, 2021 8:32 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda cost
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: grapecon@cox.net <grapecon@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 5:44 AM
To: 'Bill Foster' <billfost541@gmail.com>; 'bill schurmer' <sbschurm@yahoo.com>; 'Diane Mills'
<dianebmills@gmail.com>; martycrna@gmail.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; 'Jessica Vlaco' <jvlaco@yahoo.com>; Mickey
Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; 'Amanda Wong' <kiwi_esq@hotmail.com>; 'Donald
Bell' <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; 'Elie Alyeshmerni' <Alyesh@aol.com>
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda cost
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Cost per square foot less than George F. Canyon????? Well, I guess if you only consider building cost, and use the roof
area instead of the usable square footage, you can get to that figure ($5.08M / 13,370 square feet). But is that
fair? How about using usable square footage in the denominator ($5.08M / ~6700 square feet = $760 per square foot),
and now the cost per square foot is 150% of George F Canyon. A design with a significant amount of glass, laid out in
linear fashion to provide more unnecessary ocean views, is not going to be a cost effective construction. Instead of
putting in a modest amount of glass, the city is instead putting a band aid on by adding large expensive security shutters,
which will only raise the cost further the more area of expensive glass they have to cover.
E-76
2
Regarding funding, how about applying ARPA funding to slide mitigation? Seems like that is in greater need of
“rescue.” Aren’t there other critical infrastructure needs, also? Our sewer, water, electricity, and gas lines are 50+ years
old…..no concerns there? How about undergrounding power lines to help mitigate sources of wildfire? Even if there is
good argument to use those funds for this park, that doesn’t mean the city needs to spend $15.7M (or more) on this
project. How about $5M‐$7M for the project? Right size the building to 3 rooms, use more conventional construction,
preserve existing large foliage and only re‐landscape what is necessary, etc. I am sure we could have a very nice and
functional facility for that budget. And what about funding for the massive proposed Civic Center Project????
Also, the last line in Ara’s email is offensive in that it implies LL residents want nothing done: “ the existing park
grounds and building are a poor representation of Rancho Palos Verdes, and do not support an
enhanced quality of life for our residents.” We are not arguing that nothing be done. We agree a new center and
improving the grounds is a good idea. We just don’t agree that a building of the proposed size is needed or wanted by the
community, nor all the amenities clearly designed to attract more visitors from greater distances. When we point out that
opening up views in no way affects the functionality of the community center or park, we get no response….because there
is no logical counter-argument. Does every major park in RPV have to have expansive views? Why not keep the “nestled
in the trees” community feel currently at Ladera Linda?
From: Bill Foster <billfost541@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 10:21 PM
To: Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; bill schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com>; Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com>;
martycrna@gmail.com; CC <cc@rpvca.gov>; Jessica Vlaco <jvlaco@yahoo.com>; Mickey Rodich
<mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Amanda Wong <kiwi_esq@hotmail.com>; Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; Elie
Alyeshmerni <Alyesh@aol.com>
Subject: Fwd: Ladera Linda cost
So guess the cost per square foot for Ladera Linda is less than George Canyon. Even though Ladera Linda will cost 15
million dollars more to build,So that makes it all right.
So we are building this with reliance of the American Rescue Plan Act and other bailouts for funding to build this . Does
Ladera Linda need to be rescued? The city will be using an incredible amount of its reserve and resources to build
something that according to the residents of RPV, we don’t want.
I really don’t understand the motivation of our city leaders for supporting this.
Bill Foster
32451 Searaven Dr
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Date: April 29, 2021 at 2:53:17 PM PDT
To: Bill Foster <billfost541@gmail.com>, Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>, CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: martycrna@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda cost
Mr. Foster,
The City Council is in receipt of your email expressing your concerns regarding the
Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project. Your email will be provided to the
City Council as part of the May 18 Staff Report. Please note that the City Council will
E-77
3
not be considering project budget and financing alternatives on May 4, but rather on
May 18.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight information on this project taken from the
April 6, 2021 City Council Staff Report on the City’s website at the following link:
https://rpv.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=3900
As you may know, in the 1960s, the PVPUSD developed the project site into the Ladera
Linda Elementary school. The school operated until 1980, when the City purchased the
property and officially opened the park in 1982. From 1993 to 2011, a Montessori
School leased several classrooms on the site. Since 2011, the community center and
park has been exclusively used for park recreation purposes.
In 2013, the City Council commissioned an engineering firm to assess the condition of
all its public facilities, including Ladera Linda. That assessment scored the Ladera Linda
buildings as an “F” noting that the following:
• Buildings/systems are at end of useful life: facing significant repair and
renovation costs
• Inefficient systems: Increased on-going utility costs and maintenance
• Building area is larger than needed and therefore more costly to maintain
• Code compliance – any renovation triggers accessibility and fire/life safety
upgrades to site and buildings
• Complex array of buildings creates nooks and crannies, numerous blind spots
and insecure site areas.
I am highlighting the above because it indicates that the existing buildings are, among
other things, essentially a financial liability for the City. To that point, in 2016, the then-
City Council proceeded to develop a master plan for the property. Over the next few
years, the project plans for the master plan were reviewed extensively by the public
including the adjacent neighborhoods at several public workshops and meetings. The
final design was presented and accepted by the City Council in August 2019.
In terms of the community, our city prides itself on acres of protected open
space. Ladera Linda is the only park with a community center in the eastern portion of
the City and is almost 5 miles east of PVIC and 7.5 miles east of Hesse Park. There
are very few City parks and no City community centers in that part of RPV.
During public workshops and meetings with adjacent HOAs, many residents noted that
they were not inclined to drive to Hesse Park to attend classes; they would prefer to
attend classes in their local neighborhood park. Ladera Linda is also the only City
facility with a large multi-purpose room located east of the landslide, one that could
serve as an evacuation center in case of a natural disaster.
There has recently been a comparison of the City’s estimated $15.7 million Ladera
Linda project to the Rolling Hills Estates’ George F. Canyon Nature Center project with
a reported $1.7 million price tag. The April 6, 2021 Staff Report addressed this issue in
depth. These are very different projects as shown in the following staff report excerpt:
E-78
4
Table 7. Comparison between the George F Canyon Nature Center and the Ladera
Linda Community Center
This table compares the building size, structural framed area, and estimated costs
without soft costs and contingency for both buildings. This apples-to-apples comparison
shows that the cost per square foot of the George F. Canyon Nature Center is actually
higher than the Ladera Linda Community Center. Moreover, the Ladera Linda project is
a total rebuild of approximately 7 acres of the total 11-acre site.
In considering the breadth and scope of a City project such as Ladera Linda, it is
important to understand municipal budgeting. In simple terms, the City’s budget is an
operational plan on what is expected to be spent during the year to deliver services to
the community. That budget number also represents the cash outflow related to the
delivery of the services. Ladera Linda is a capital project, and all capital projects are
expended over the life of the asset, not in the year or years that it was built and is
therefore not considered an operating expense. That said, to construct a capital project
in government, you need to understand the City’s cash flow. At the end of March 2021,
the City has a cash balance of $64.1 million in all of its funds (i.e. General Fund, CIP,
Gas Tax, CDBG, Prop A, Prop C, etc.). However, because this is a capital project, not
affecting general operations, the cost would be borne by the Capital Infrastructure
Program (CIP) Fund which has a cash balance of $25.5 million at the end of March
2021 (the General Fund which supports services has a cash balance of $22.8 million at
the end of March 2021).
There are multiple ways the City could fund this project without impacting operations or
services. Based on the estimated project cost of $15.7 million, the City’s Finance
Advisory Committee is currently working on evaluating different financing options for this
project. One option currently being considered is using a mixture of the American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding, Quimby Fund, CIP Fund, and financing. This option
would reduce the use of general operations funds so services are not impacted nor
taxes raised (which is not even under consideration). The City has an estimated
allocation of $7.8 million from the ARPA and just under $1 million available from Quimby
Fund.
The point in providing this information is to understand that the existing park and
community center are a valuable City asset that needs to be maintained similar to other
City assets, like roads, trails, and critical infrastructure. If not maintained, the cost to the
City may likely exceed the estimated project cost in the long term. Lastly, the existing
park grounds and building are a poor representation of Rancho Palos Verdes, and do
not support an enhanced quality of life for our residents.
E-79
5
I hope this has been helpful. Please feel free to reach out to me with any follow-up
questions.
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
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.
From: Bill Foster <billfost541@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 2:21 AM
To: Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: martycrna@gmail.com
Subject: Ladera Linda cost
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
E-80
6
I was shocked after reading the PvP watch letter about the cost of the park project. I’m sure you have
read it, but reread it again. How can you honestly commit over40% of the cities yearly revenues for a
questionable and unpopular project?
This is the most alarming part of the newsletter
The Cost
The Torrance Daily Breeze has reported that the cost of this
project is expected to be $15,700,000. By the time it is
completed this number will be bigger than that…it always is. To
give that large number context realize that the RPV budget for
fiscal year 2020-2021 totaled $37,979,100 in
expenditures. That means the projected cost of Ladera Linda is
41.4% of this fiscal year’s expenditures…for the entire
city! PVP Watch believes this is out of line for a city that is
supposed to pride itself in following a conservative fiscal policy.
On May 4th the city council will determine how to finance this
extravagance. With the recent reduction in tax revenues due to
Covid-19 business closures this will take imagination and
should be carefully scrutinized.
Bill Foster
32451 Searaven Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes
Sent from my iPad
E-81
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 3, 2021 11:21 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Traffic signal
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone - (310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-
19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some
employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please
schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted
directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our
response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
-----Original Message-----
From: Irene Henrikson <irene.henrikson@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 1, 2021 10:19 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Traffic signal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
E-82
2
If you are spending millions(where is the money coming from?) on the Ladera Linda Park surely you
can install a traffic signal so drivers don’t have to wait ten minutes to turn left onto PV south. Just a
travesty for residents!
Irene and Paul Henrikson
32404 Searaven Dr
E-83
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 3, 2021 11:20 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: WHAT TO DO WITH LADERA LINDA?
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: rolo15@aol.com <rolo15@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 2, 2021 10:29 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; rolo15@aol.com
Subject: WHAT TO DO WITH LADERA LINDA?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To: RPV City Council: May 2, 2021
This is to state my opposition to the proposed development at Ladera Linda.
If something needs to be done with Ladera Linda piece of land, make it a
grassy area with a couple of teeter-totters that kids could enjoy and perhaps
an obstacle course for skate boarding teens. If there is a good view, we can
enjoy it without tourists’ presence.
E-84
2
Palos Verdes Peninsula’s charm depends on being a quiet out-of-the -way
village on the edge of a metropolis, not readily accessible or inviting. We are
happy as we are. Local popular meetings rarely exceed fifty people and are
easily accommodated by the existing conference rooms at the library or
Hesse Park. There is no need for a Palos Verdes Tajh Mahal with more
auditoriums and numerous bathrooms to support some non-existent crowds.
Let us not build something that will need merchandising to tourist trade to
justify its existence.
I am especially upset at Councilman Dyda’s support of the project. He
promised low-density land use and minimum taxes when he was a member
of the first city council in 1973. The fifteen million cost of the project (sure to
grow as project costs do), and perhaps twice as much if paid by a bond,
works out close to at least $400 for every man, woman, and child on RPV.
Let us remember Tomas Paine wisdom: ”Government, even in its best state,
is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one”.
Spending peoples’ money without their support is surely not the “best state”.
Roland Ilsen
6847 Abbottswood Dr.
E-85
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:53 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: Barry Cossette <BarryBJC007@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 11:46 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
As a 23-year RPV resident now retired, I fail to see the necessity for such a large facility in an area not designed
to handle the influx of people. We have already seen the mess the Sunday hikers from all over LA County are
making in our traffic and neighborhoods; this will add more messed up neighborhoods to the list.
Barry Cossette
Armaga Spring Rd
E-86
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:51 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Community Center Project
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: Susan's Email <rpvbeckman@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 5:29 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
City Council Members,
We have lived in RPV for over 40 years in the PV Drive South area. We strongly oppose the dollar amount and the size
of the proposed Ladera Linda project. While we do not live in the immediate neighborhood we feel this project is not
good for those neighbors. The increased traffic and pollution alone will be unacceptable.
We hope that you will reconsider your vote to build the project as proposed at this time.
John and Susan Beckman
E-87
2
1 Packet Road
RPV, Ca
E-88
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:52 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda project.
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: Greg Teles <docteles@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 11:54 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda project.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
In this climate of COVID and stressful conditions, I strongly disagree with going forward with this exorbitant project.
In my opinion, this is reckless regard to fiscal responsibility. This needs to stop now. Going forward with this will hurt
our city.
I strongly suggest you vote NO on this moving forward.
E-89
2
‐‐
Thank you.
Greg Teles
All South Bay Footcare
23365 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 101
Torrance, CA 90505
310‐326‐0202
E-90
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:52 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Please vote no on the Ladera Linda Project
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: George Walker <george@walker‐g.com>
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 2:01 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Please vote no on the Ladera Linda Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Council Members
I am very concerned that the Ladera Linda project is so expensive and is being forced upon the
neighbors in the area against their will.
Please vote no when this is considered on May 18.
E-91
2
George A Walker
6035 Ocean Terrace Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
george@walker‐g.com
310‐990‐9003
E-92
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:52 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Please vote “No” Ladera Linda center
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone - (310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-
19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some
employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please
schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted
directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our
response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
-----Original Message-----
From: drgskin <drgskin@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 2:26 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Please vote “No” Ladera Linda center
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear RPV council men,
E-93
2
After careful consideration, we would like to voice our strong opposition to Ladera Linda community
center project. We do not want our city to over spend on facility we don’t need or want. We also don’t
want increased traffic or crime to the city we love. We don’t live too close but near there (in PVE) but
can definitely use the facility. However, we don’t want you guys to over build and then hike up tax to
us or our children. We have enough public amenities to use and enjoy already.
Thank you very much for listening and vote according to your constituents. Thank you!
Mr. AHo and SChiu
E-94
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:52 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Project
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone - (310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-
19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some
employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please
schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted
directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our
response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Marckx <jmarckx@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 1:54 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
This expenditure is not a good use of city funds.
E-95
2
Why not update the restrooms and provide some overdue maintenance.
Thanks for being our city council.
John Marckx
E-96
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:51 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Center
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: KENNETH DAPONTE <knjlastmile@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 2:55 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Center
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Council Member-This is to request that the proposed massive expenditure for the
unwanted and unneeded Center is not made.
This money is better spent for improving and expanding existing recreational
projects--trail additions and improvements, more playgrounds, etc. --that benefit
RPV residents. rather than the thousands of greater LA visitors who are slowly
overwhelming the current recreational facilities we residents used to be able to enjoy
without larger and larger crowds the internet has attracted. I personally don't even try to
E-97
2
use the Preserve trails on Crenshaw anymore after being being rundown by mountain
bike riders 3 times. Check it out on a weekend when that area is jampacked with non-
RPV/Peninsula visitors trashing the place.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Dr. Ken Daponte--50- year RPV resident
E-98
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:53 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Community Center
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: Linda Cavette <lkcavette@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 11:39 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Please do not spend this kind of money on the Ladera Linda Community Center. The buildings so far
out of touch with the rest of RPV is just not rational. Over $15 million of tax payers money is just
useless to the rest of the RPV community. Its too far out of the main part of RPV for this kind of
expenditure. Yes, build the playing fields, but reduce that price on the extravagant buildings.
I'd rather see you spend on the new City Hall buildings. I am pretty sure you are ignoring the survey
we all took time to send to you.
Linda Cavette, Realtor ®
310-722-7550 cell
Coldwell Banker Realty
E-99
2
DRE #01294734
LKCavette@aol.com email
LindaCavette.com website
Named in the Top 1,000 Realtors USA NATIONALLY, Honored by NRT LLC,
management and operations of Coldwell Banker®, Sotheby's International
Realty®, The Corcoran Group®, ZipRealty®, Climb Real Estate, Century 21.
E-100
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:50 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Community Center
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: Chuck's Gmail <chuck.agnew@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2021 3:24 PM
To: Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank
<John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>; CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov>; Planning <Planning@rpvca.gov>; CC
<CC@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Parks <Parks@rpvca.gov>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>;
Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Planning <Planning@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Matt
Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Please approve the Ladera Linda Community Center.
I have play paddle tennis there twice per week for over 31 years.
E-101
2
We use to hold neighborhood dinner dances, children’s birthday parties,
Christmas functions, Halloween fun houses, neighborhood block parties,
square dancing, and etcetera at our Community Center. With proper
improvements we can do it again.
It certainly will increase our property values, and our property taxes.
Our neighborhood used to have annual dinner dances.
We don’t any more partly because the price has become prohibitive. With a
modern Community Room that facility could become an attractive low cost
option.
It presently is a ghost town. Leaving in its present condition is unthinkable.
I agree that the cost is too high, but we have been over ten years in the
planning, and starting over isn’t an option.
A combination of pay for it now and finance the rest with low interest rates is
the answer.
Charles Agnew
32261 Phantom Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes
CA 90275
cvagnew@cox.net
chuck.agnew@gmail.com
(310) 377 0290
E-102
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:50 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: NO to Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: Jessica Feldman <jessyfeldm@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2021 10:55 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>
Subject: NO to Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear RPV representatives,
I would like to voice my strong opposition to the Ladera Linda community center project. I read Herb Stark's
article and completely agree with him.
I do not want our city to overspend on a facility! We need to budget our resources more carefully and not
burden us with higher taxes! I don't mind paying taxes, but I want the funds to be used judiciously and get the
most bang for our buck (like education). This facility proposal is over the top and does not reflect our
community needs/budget and the practicalities Mr. Stark detail are scary!
E-103
2
Thank you very much for listening and please vote NO. Thank you!
Jessica Feldman
4212 Miraleste Dr., RPV
E-104
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:50 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: Marty Dodell <mdodell@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2021 9:32 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To RPV City Council members,
I write to urge a NO vote on the Ladera Linda project especially in light of a $15,000,000 price tag. I think it a huge
investment that will provide services for a relatively small part of the City remotely sited as it is.
Martin Dodell
48 year resident of RPV
E-105
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:50 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Community Center vote NO
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: mozawa@cox.net <mozawa@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2021 8:50 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center vote NO
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Please vote NO on the Ladera Linda Community Center. The cost is too high. Thank you.
Michael Ozawa
5234 Valley View Road
Michael Ozawa
mozawa@cox.net
(213) 705‐9339
E-106
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 9:44 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone - (310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-
19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some
employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please
schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted
directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our
response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Levine <lisalevine2@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 9:39 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: info@pvpwatch.com
Subject: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello City Council,
E-107
2
I vote “NO” to the Ladera Linda Community Project.
It sounds like the neighbors are not in favor of this and their opinions should count.
Lisa Levine
RPV
E-108
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 10:43 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: Larry Carapellotti <larryc3@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 10:43 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>
Cc: lisalevine2@icloud.com; Critelli, Robert C III <Robert.C.Critelli@morganstanley.com>; johnrsato@gmail.com;
c.robert.chow@gmail.com; myang@orrick.com; debbie.schneider@balimgmt.com
Subject: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Please don’t waste RPV funds on a facility at Ladera Linda when there are many more important priorities. There is
nothing at Ladera Linda to attract visitors other than some trails in the hills. Improving the Ocean cliff areas where visitors
flock daily is a much better use of City recreational funds.
Ocean Front Estates
We have been waiting for the City to remove the acacia bushes along PV Drive in OFE for over one year (they represent
a safety and fire hazard). We have also been waiting for the City to institute “permit parking only” at OFE (passed by the
Safety Committee in February).
E-109
2
If the council really wants to direct visitors to parking that will not impact residents why don’t you pave the two parking lots
at the Interpretive Center and improve the signage.
Unfortunately, we at Ocean Front Estates, feel that the City is not responsive to our requests and needs. Our residents
pay over $5MM per year in property taxes and get very little back from the City; especially when it comes to safety and
maintenance issues. We at OFE spend $300k/year to keep our residents safe – a job which the Sheriff should be doing
(we almost never see a Sheriff’s vehicle in our neighborhood). Please HELP.
Let’s take care of what we have before we waste money on a facility that nobody wants!
Larry Carapellotti
VP – OFE/HOA
larryc3@cox.net
Cell: 818-519-8520
E-110
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Tuesday, May 11, 2021 11:35 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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.
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: Sue Soldoff <drsue@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 11:32 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
We both vote NO on the overpriced Ladera Linda project.
Susan Soldoff
Stephen Soldoff
Sue & Steve Soldoff
3414 Coolheights Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, USA
drsue@cox.net * ssoldoff@cox.net
E-111
2
(310) 740‐2465 * (310) 740‐2455
E-112
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 04/06/2021
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission -
approval for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park project located at 32201
Forrestal Drive (Case No. PLCU2020-0007).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Review the Planning Commission-approved Conditional Use Permit, Major
Grading Permit, Variance and Site Plan Review application findings (planning
entitlements) and Conditions of Approval for the construction of the new Ladera
Linda Community Center and Park project;
(2) Review responses to public comments and recommendations adopted by the
Planning Commission, via minute order, to the proposed project;
(3) Review Staff recommended modifications to the Planning Commission -adopted
Conditions of Approval;
(4) If acceptable, adopt Resolution No. 2021-__; upholding the Planning
Commission-approved Conditional Use Permit, Major Grading Permit, Variance
and Site Plan Review for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park project
with modifications to the Conditions of Approval; and
(5) If acceptable, direct Staff to proceed with the completion of construction
documents and authorize advertisement of bids upon final completion of plans
and specifications for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park project.
FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact associated with the City Council’s appeal hearing.
Project specific costs are further discussed in the ‘Additional Information’ section of this
report.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Octavio Silva, Deputy Director of Community Development
REVIEWED BY: Ken Rukavina PE Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
F-1
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Click on the following links to view the supporting attachments except for Attachment A:
A. Draft Resolution No. 2021-___ (page A-1)
B. Project Plans (page B-1)
C. Planning Commission-Adopted Resolution No. 2021-02 (page C-1)
D. Public Facilities City Council Subcommittee Appeal Request (page D-1)
E. Public Comments (page E-1)
F. Environmental Assessment Determination (page F-1)
G. Willdan Engineering Traffic & Parking Impact Analysis (page G-1)
H. Ladera Linda Community Center & Park Usage Analysis (page H-1)
I. Grading & Retaining Wall Exhibit (page I-1)
J. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated February 23, 2021 (page J-
1)
K. Potential Project Design Modifications Exhibit (page K-1)
L. Finance Advisory Committee Presentation dated February 25, 2021 (page
L-1)
BACKGROUND:
In 1960s, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) developed the
project site into the Ladera Linda Elementary, which included five structures and
ancillary site improvements. The school operated until 1980 when the City purchased
the property and the Rancho Palos Verdes Parks and Recreation Department took over
operations of the site. The park officially opened to the public in 1982. From 1993 to
2011, a Montessori School leased several classrooms on the site. Since 2011, the
community center and park has been exclusively used for park recreation purposes.
2015 Master Plan Update
In 2015, the City commissioned a Parks Master Plan Update (Master Plan), which was
prepared by Richard Fisher Associates (RFA). The Master Plan update recommended
a separate Master Plan for Ladera Linda to include, but not limited to, the following
components:
• Demolish existing buildings and construct a new Community Center;
• Incorporate an expanded Nature Center/Preserve Annex;
• Incorporate a Sheriff/Ranger Drop-in Office;
• Pave access road between lower and middle parking lots.
Early in the public outreach process for the Parks Master Plan and Ladera Linda Master
Plan, there was general agreement to keep existing components and not add any new
elements. After two years of extensive community outreach and design work, in 2018,
the City Council reviewed and approved a conceptual Master Use Plan for Ladera Linda
Park prepared by RFA, which included an approximately 8,900 ft2 Community Center
building with two sets of restrooms along with ancillary site improvements. Based on
F-2
public input, the City Council-approved Master Use Plan for Ladera Linda was modified
as follows:
• Large scale recreation components such as a gymnasium, pool or skate park
were removed from consideration;
• Active recreation elements were relocated from the lower park tier to the upper
park tier to minimize noise and visual impacts to the Ladera Linda neighborhood;
• The height and density of project landscaping was modified to minimize visual
impacts on adjacent neighborhood while still allowing for adequate security
sightlines; and
• Multiple reductions were made to the building square footage from its current
existing size, including several Richard Fisher design iterations that resulted in
the approved 2018 RFA Master Plan.
Subsequent to approval of the conceptual Master Use Plan for Ladera Linda Park, the
City Council directed Staff to proceed with developing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to
solicit proposals for the preparation of Phase 1 - Final Concepts Drawings and Phase 2
- Detailed Construction Drawings. At City Council’s direction, representatives from the
Seaview, Ladera Linda, Mediterrania, and Seacliff Hills homeowners’ associations
(HOAs) were invited to participate in the consultant selection process due to their
proximity to the Ladera Linda site. Staff prepared a draft RFP that was reviewed and
approved by the City Council RFP ad hoc subcommittee. Based on the results of the
RFP interview, the architectural firm Johnson Favaro was awarded the contract to
prepare the project plans.
Johnson Favaro Project Design
Johnson Favaro began its design work with numerous small exploratory meetings with a
wide range of interested parties in February 2019 in order to gain a better sense of the
community concerns. Johnson Favaro met with representatives from four HOAs
(Seaview, Ladera Linda, Mediterrania and Seacliff Hills) located in the vicinity of the
park, individual councilmembers, Los Serenos de Point Vicente docents, City staff,
individual residents and other small groups. As a result of this public and internal
engagement, Johnson Favaro developed a refined conceptual design, which includes:
• Reduction in the building size of approximately 4,800 ft2 from the RFA building
design;
• Further realignment of active features away from the Ladera Linda neighborhood
by positioning the building away from the western bluff edge overlooking the
Seaview neighborhood and modifications to the meeting room layout and design;
• Elimination of second set of restrooms;
• Elimination of lobby/gallery area;
• Replacement of the Discovery Room with a smaller multi-function meeting room
that incorporates elements of the Discovery Room per City Council direction; and
• Reduction in the size of the multi-purpose room.
In July 2019, the City and Johnson Favaro conducted a public workshop, in wh ich
Johnson Favaro presented its outreach efforts and proposed park design. 84 people
F-3
attended the Master Plan workshop at Ladera Linda with 38% of attendees from the
Ladera Linda HOA, 14% from the Seaview HOA, 2% from the Mediterrania HOA, and
46% were from other parts of the City. During the workshop, park operations were also
presented to the public including proposed hours and days of operation, staffing levels,
and Community Center usage.
On August 20, 2019, after a comprehensive public outreach and engagement effort, the
City Council approved the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Master Plan. The
City Council’s August 20, 2019 actions included approving the design of the
replacement Community Center, landscaping, ancillary site improvements, which also
included factors such as park security, staffing levels and facility rentals.
On October 15, 2019, the City Council reviewed roof design options, including a green
roof or pitched roof, and subsequently directed Staff to study the installation of a solar
roof option on a flat roof as part of the detailed construction drawings phase. The size
and configuration of the solar panel system will be determined during the final design
phase; however, the solar panels can be laid flat and flush with the roof and sill provide
energy to operate the building.
Since 2019, the proposed project design has been further modified as follows:
• Additional reduction of approximately 110 ft2 in the size of the Community Center
square footage;
• A reduction in the overall building height and the width of exterior covered
walkways to further minimize building massing and reduce visual impacts of the
building on the site; and
• A reduction in the building exterior glass wall area by 31% and an increase in
solid wall surface area by 30% as compared to the August 2019 City Council
approved Johnson Favaro design.
On January 26, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider
the planning entitlements for the Council-approved Ladera Linda Community Center
and Park project. The planning entitlements include a Conditional Use Permit (CUP),
Variance, Major Grading Permit and Site Plan Review. After considering information
presented at the meeting including public testimony, the Planning Commission
continued the public hearing to February 23, 2021 , to provide Staff an opportunity to
incorporate project feedback provided by the Planning Commission.
On February 23, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted the continued public
hearing and after consider information presented including public testimony, the
Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2021-02 (Attachment C),
conditionally approving the planning entitlements for the Ladera Linda Community
Center and Park project. The Planning Commission in their motion, which passed on a
7-0 vote, approved Conditions of Approval to mitigate project impacts that included, but
were not limited to, safety and security measures, hours of operation, limits on the
number of rentals and special events, noise restrictions, and lighting. The Planning
Commission also adopted, via minute order, recommendations for consideration by the
City Council which include implementing of traffic and parking measures, prioritizing
F-4
park usage to City residents and assessing current and future site usage.
On February 24, 2021, the City Council’s Public Facilities Subcommittee, consisting of
Mayor Alegria and Councilmember Cruikshank, notified the City Manager that they are
requesting that consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the
subject project be placed on the March 2, 2021 City Council agenda.
On March 2, 2021, the City Council, after considering information presented including
public testimony, voted to appeal the Planning Commission’s approval of the Ladera
Linda Community Center and Park land-use applications and tentatively set the appeal
hearing for April 6, 2021 (Attachment D). In its decision, the City Council indicated that
their action did not represent disagreement with the Planning Commission’s decision,
but felt the decision of this City project should be in the jurisdiction of the City Council,
thereby warranting the appeal.
On March 11, 2021, a public notice announcing the City Council’s consideration of the
appeal was sent to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site and
interested parties as well as published in the Peninsula News. As of the preparation of
this report, staff has received 33 public communications (Attachment E) in response to
the public notice. These public comments are discussed in the Public Correspondence
Section of this report.
DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) § 17.80.070(F) (De Novo
Review), a City Council appeal hearing is not limited to consideration of the materials
presented to the Planning Commission. Any matter or evidence relating to the action on
the application, regardless of the specific issue appealed, may be reviewed by the City
Council at the appeal hearing. As such, this staff report presents information considered
by the Planning Commission, as well as new evidence and is outlined as follows:
1. Site Description
2. Project Description
3. Planning Entitlement Code Considerations & Analysis
o Conditional Use Permit
o Variance
o Major Grading Permit
o Site Plan Review
o Environmental Analysis
4. Public Comments
5. Planning Commission Recommendations
6. Staff Recommended Modified Conditions of Approval
7. Additional Information
o Potential Project Modifications
o Project Cost
o Project Timeline
o Miscellaneous
F-5
1. Site Description
The project site is owned and operated by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and
consists of approximately 11.031 acres. The project site is bounded by Forrestal Drive
and open space preserve (Forrestal Reserve) to the north and east, the Ladera Linda
Neighborhood Community to the southeast, Dauntless Drive and the Seaview
Neighborhood Community to the south and southwest and Ladera Linda Park soccer
fields (owned by the PVPUSD) to the west. The site is currently composed of five
buildings (approximately 18,574 ft2 in gross area)1 comprising the Community Center,
surface parking, playground paving, equipment, two full-court basketball courts, two
paddle tennis courts, fields, landscaping, City offices, and emergency preparedness
storage containers. Approximately 7 acres of the site are used for these purposes with
the remainder of the area being steep terraced slopes to the south and southwest of the
site that are improved with mature landscaping and drainage swales. As a result of the
topography in the area, the project site is configured into three tiers, a lower, middle,
and upper. The project site also includes two easements that traverse the property from
north to south for storm drain purposes.
The project site has a General Plan and Zoning designation of Institutional Public and
Institutional (I), respectively. The site is immediately adjacent to the south-west of the
Forrestal Reserve (a sub-area of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve) and in the
immediate area of a number of public trails including, but not limited to, the Forrestal,
Pirate and Quarry Trails. The site is also within the vicinity of various conceptual trails
as outlined in the City’s Conceptual Trails Plan. Additional information about the public
trails in the area of the project site are further discussed in the Public Trails section of
this report. The existing Ladera Linda Park and Community Center is the only City
facility serving residents and the community on the east side of the City.
2. Project Description
The City Council-approved Ladera Linda Community Center and Park project involves
the following:
• Demolition of five existing buildings (18,574 ft2 in gross area), parking, ancillary
site improvements and landscaping;
• Construction of a new 6,790 ft2 single-story building (Community Center) with an
overall building footprint of 13,720 ft2 (enclosed and covered areas) at an overall
height of 16 feet – 6 ¼ inches;
• Construction of a 775 ft2 outdoor tiered seating area;
• Construction of a 54-stall parking lot located adjacent to building and playground,
including four clean air vehicle spaces;
• Construction of a naturalistic children’s playground area in th e upper tier;
1 Please note that the gross floor area of the existing buildings was previously reported to be 19,000 ft2. After
further examination of the project site survey, it was determined that the enclosed and covered area of the
buildings total approximately 18,574 ft2.
F-6
• Construction of one full basketball court and a half-court basketball court in the
upper tier;
• Renovation of two existing paddle tennis courts in the upper tier;
• Construction of a 400 ft2 storage facility at 12 feet in height for City and
emergency supplies;
• Construction of walking paths throughout park area along with upper and lower
lawn areas;
• Construction of a lawn area in the lower tier;
• Utilization of existing driveway off Forrestal Drive as the only vehicular entrance
into the park;
• Installation of low-impact, native and drought-tolerant landscaping, including 30-
foot to 100-foot buffer zone between the building and southerly slope;
• 9,000 cubic yards combined balanced on-site grading (4,500 cubic yards of cut
and 4,500 cubic yards of fill);
• Grading cut and fill over 5 feet in height to support an Americans with Disability
Act (ADA) access ramp between middle- and upper-tiers;
• Construction of retaining and combination walls to a maximum height of 15 ½
feet to accommodate accessibility and ADA compliant ramps;
• Installation of a new 12-foot flagpole;
• Construction of mechanical equipment and refuse storage area;
• Installation of new bike and storage area;
• Installation of vehicular entry gate for park security; and,
• Installation of on-site lighting.
Below is the proposed 6,790 ft2 single-story building floor plan diagram illustrating the
enclosed spaces:
The building is proposed to contain the following components:
• A 1,880 ft2 divisible multi-purpose room with a seating capacity of 144 in lecture
format;
• Two classrooms with a combined area of approximately 1,690 ft2. Classroom 1
has a seating capacity of 60 in lecture format or capacity for 24 seats at tables.
Classroom 2 has a seating capacity of 24 seats at tables;
• A 660 ft2 multi-function meeting room with Discovery Room displays built into the
walls and a seating capacity of 16 at tables;
• A 240 ft2 work room with a maximum occupant load of 3;
• Storage and staging areas with a combined area of approximately 490 ft2;
• Public restrooms;
F-7
• A 380 ft2 staff office with a maximum occupant load of 4;
• A 137 ft2 outdoor breezeway/patio covered lobby;
• A 150 ft2 kitchenette and staging area with a maximum occupant load of 2;
• Covered walkways;
• Janitorial and electrical rooms; and
• Vestibules
The building footprint measures 13,720 ft2, which consists of the entire roofed area of the
structure including the 6,790 ft2 enclosed area.
The following aerial image shows the existing school buildings (red-striped) overlaying
the proposed building siting. Please note that the new Community Center was setback
further from the southwesterly transition slope to mitigate potential view impacts to
residential properties located in the Seaview neighborhood.
A comparison of the existing versus proposed hardscape and vehicular
circulation/parking footprint is demonstrated in the tables below:
Hardscape Comparison (courts, driveway, parking)
Current Design Proposed Design
Acreage 2.68 acres 1.59 acres
Square Footage 116,900 ft2 69,075 ft2
Vehicular Circulation & Parking Comparison
Current Design Proposed Design
Acreage 1.5 acres .88 acres
Square Footage 65,500 ft2 38,374 ft2
F-8
Proposed Park Building Hours
The following table shows current and proposed Ladera Linda park and building hours.
Park & Building Hours Hours: Mon-Fri Hours: Sat-Sun
Current 12:00 p.m.- 5:00 p.m. 10:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m.
Proposed 8:00 a.m.- dusk 8:00 a.m.- dusk
Hours would be extended to 9:00 p.m. if rentals or classes are scheduled. Ladera Linda
Park is currently staffed by one part-time employee per shift who is overseen by a full-
time recreation supervisor. The new building will likely increase staffing to two part-time
employees per shift with one full-time supervisor.
Proposed Park Usage
The table below shows current Ladera Linda usage policies. While the park will be used
more during the day, restrictions on park usage and rental hours are proposed.
**Restriction does not apply to non-profits, City events, or HOA rentals.
Conditions require that no nighttime special events (one hour after dusk) would be permitted
without a Special Use Permit being issued, which will require public notification. Staff will
coordinate with the AYSO schedule to minimize impact by avoiding large rentals or events at the
same time as AYSO game days.
Building and Park Security
Security will be incorporated into the overall design of the park and Community Center,
which will be formalized during the construction design phase. Following is a summary
of the security measures incorporated into the City Council design -approved project and
the Planning Commission-adopted Conditions of Approval:
• Clear points of entry and improved sight lines in the final design
• Appropriately placed exterior and interior security cameras and motion sensors
• Appropriate low-level landscaping
• Control of ingress and egress points during operating hours and non-operating
hours
• Glass break sensors
Rental Polices LL Current LL Proposed
Rental Hours Not specified 10:00 a.m.- 9:00 p.m.
Classes Not specified 8:00 a.m.- 9:00 p.m.
Private Rentals after 5 p.m. No current limits 2 x month **
Amplified Music (indoor only.
Outdoor prohibited)
10:00 a.m. – 10:00
p.m. 11:00 a.m.- 8:00 p.m.
Special Events No limit 8/year
F-9
• Comprehensive best practices, lighting design throughout park and building
• Ability to secure park perimeter at night through fencing and improved entrance
gates for both pedestrian and vehicular access points
• Reduction/elimination of blind spots
• Increased utilization of the park combined with increased staff supervision
The Planning Commission-approved Conditions of Approval include provisions to
secure the lobby breezeway, restroom and accompanying sink areas with roll-down
gates and automatically shut-off the water to the wash area on a nightly basis.
3. Planning Entitlement Code Consideration & Analysis
The following reflects the Planning Commission’s analysis finding that the Project is
consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in relation to the required
planning entitlements for the proposed project. The planning entitlements include a
Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Major Grading Permit and Site Plan Review whereby
the required applications are analyzed separately below:
a. Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
The project site has a zoning designation of Institutional. Pursuant to RPVMC §
17.26.030(A), a CUP is required in the Institutional Zoning District for public facilities
owned or used and operated for governmental purposes by the City (emphasis added),
the county, the state and the government of the United States of America, and any
special district or other local agency. In addition, pursuant to RPVMC § 17.26.040(B),
institutional buildings erected in the City shall have a building height not greater than 16
feet and shall not exceed one story, unless with the approval of a CUP by the Planning
Commission (or City Council on appeal). As the proposed Ladera Linda Community
Center and Park site is owned and operated by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and
the proposed building will be over 16 feet in height, at 16 feet- 6 ¼ inches, thereby a
CUP is required for the project. In considering a CUP, pursuant to RPVMC §
17.60.050(A), the Planning Commission made the following findings in reference to the
property and project, which is now under consideration by the City Council (Finding
language is boldface, followed by assessment of the Project in normal type):
1. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use
and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other
features required by this title or by conditions imposed under this section
to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the
neighborhood.
The project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use. The
project site is approximately 11.031 acres in size and currently utilized as a park and
Community Center with multiple facility buildings, surface parking, playground pav ing,
equipment and paddle tennis courts, fields, landscaping and emergency preparedness
storage containers. The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing facilities
and improvements, with the exception of the paddle tennis courts, to constru ct a single
Community Center structure that would be approximately 40% of the total area of the
F-10
existing facility. Consequently, the new building would occupy a significantly smaller
footprint than the existing buildings and be located in the middle of the existing built
areas of the Park. The proposed Community Center and ancillary facilities are sited
throughout the 11.031-acre tiered site, so as to provide enhanced setbacks to adjacent
properties and provide enhanced line of sight from the perimeter of the property for
security purposes. The proposed 54 on-site parking spaces, which consist of four ADA
spaces, four dedicated spaces for clean air vehicles (one Van ADA space included),
exceed the parking stalls required for both weekend (42 spaces) and weekday (15
spaces) conditions for the proposed project as outlined in the latest edition of the
Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition, 2019). As
such, this finding can be made.
2. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to
carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use.
The proposed project relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and
quantity of traffic generated by the use. The project replaces the existing Community
Center facility, comprised of several buildings, with a single building that would be less
than 40% of the total area of the existing facilities. In addition, the new building would
occupy a smaller footprint than the existing Community Center buildings within the
existing built areas of the Park. Furthermore, the Project will not result in any increases
to the existing uses, programming, and activities. Rather, uses, programming and
activities are proposed to be limited and regulated, and would, therefore, have
substantially the same purpose, but with less capacity than the existing facility that will
be replaced. The park does not create a cumulative impact on traffic within the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes. The traffic on Forrestal Drive is mostly attributed to the only
outlet to over 160 single family homes off Pirate Drive. The proposed Community
Center and Park does not affect the traffic signal warrant at the intersection of Palos
Verdes Drive South and Forrestal/Trump National as noted in the Traffic Impact
Analysis prepared by Willdan Engineering (Attachment G). As such, this finding can be
made.
3. In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no
significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use
thereof.
The project site is currently improved with a park use and will continue to serve as such
as part of the proposed project. The new Community Center will serve all residents and
the community, particularly those located on the east side of the City, as an area for
recreational opportunities as well as for emergency preparedness activities such as, but
not limited to, a cooling center, storage location and emergency evacuation center. The
height of the proposed Community Center is 16 feet- 6 ¼ inches and will not create a
significant adverse effect, as residential properties to the east and south of the project
site have views of the ocean and Catalina Island oriented in the opposite direction of the
proposed building. Furthermore, the building pad of the proposed Community Center
will be located approximately 25 feet below the street of access (Forrestal Drive),
therefore views from the street and adjacent trails can be observed over the proposed
building height. The project will not result in any adverse safety or security impacts, as
F-11
the City Council design-approved project includes a comprehensive list of safety
measures and designs such as the incorporation of a surveillance system , motion and
glass break sensors, perimeter fencing, and lighting design. The project will not result in
adverse noise impacts as the project incorporates construction noise regulations for
potential short-term construction impacts, hours of operation for the community center
and limitations on mechanical equipment noise for potential long-term operational
impacts. The project lighting will not result in an adverse impact because the site
lighting has been designed to comply with RPVMC regulations that require lighting to be
down-cast and avoid illumination of the night sky and to provide for park safety and
security. As such, this finding can be made.
4. The proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan.
The use of the property for a community center and park is consistent with the
Institutional-Public General Plan Land Use designation for the site. The project site is
currently a park with a community center and will continue to be utilized as such. The
new community center and park will serve all residents and the community, particularly
those located on the east side of the City, as an area for recreational opportunities as
well as for emergency preparedness activities such as, but not limited to, a cooling
center, storage location, and emergency evacuation center. Furthermore, the
Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s 2018 General Plan Update (p age
COS-39) identified the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park as an Institutional-
Public land use with passive and active amenities including playground and sports
equipment, multipurpose rooms and classrooms, as well as ancillary site improvements
including a parking lot and restrooms. The General Plan also notes that a Master Plan
process for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park was included in the Parks
Master Plan Update. As such, this finding can be made.
5. If the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control districts
established by Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts) of this title [Title 17
“Zoning”], the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of
that chapter.
The project site is not within an overlay control district. Therefore, this finding is not
applicable to the project.
6. That conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph,
which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the
health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed (including but not
limited to): setbacks and buffers; fences or walls; lighting; vehicular
ingress or egress; noise, vibration, odors and similar emissions;
landscaping; maintenance of structures, grounds or signs; service roads
or alleys; and such other conditions as will make possible development of
the city in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent
and purposes set forth in this title (Title 17 – Zoning).
Conditions of Approval were approved by the Planning Commission to mitigate potential
impacts to adjacent properties and to protect the health, safety and general welfare of
F-12
the residents, businesses, and visitors of the City. A further discussion of the proposed
Conditions of Approval is presented in the ‘Conditions of Approval’ section of this report.
Based on the above discussion, the Planning Commission was able to make the
required CUP findings as reflected in the attached resolution for City Council
consideration.
b. Variance
Pursuant to RPVMC § 17.76.030(C)(2)(b)(ii), walls combined with a fence, the total
height may not exceed 8 feet, as measured from grade on the lower side and may not
exceed 7 feet as measured from grade on the higher side. The project proposes the
construction of a retaining wall measuring up to 15 ½ feet (retaining wall and safety
railing) in height and approximately 265 feet in length to support ADA complaint ramps
between the middle- and upper-tiers of the park. Pursuant to RPVMC § 17.64.010(A),
the Planning Commission was able to find that a Variance may be granted because of
practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or results inconsistent with the general
intent and purpose of the title occurred by reason of the strict interpretation of any of its
provisions, as reflected in the following findings (Finding language is boldface,
followed by assessment of the Project in normal type) are met:
1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property,
which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district;
The project site was originally developed as an elementary school with multiple
classroom buildings and play areas on a three-tiered site due to the unique and steep
topographic conditions in the area, which have been used as a community center and
park facilities since the 1980s. The three tiers include a lower, middle and upper tier
with 5-foot to 15-foot transitional slopes between the tiers. The project proposes to
maintain the same three-tier park layout and will also include new accessible walking
paths and ramps to enhance accessibility and walkability throughout the project site. In
order to accommodate an ADA-compliant accessible ramp between the middle- and
upper-tiers of the park, the project proposes to construct a retaining wall with an overall
height of up to 15½ feet. The existing site development and requirement to provide for
enhanced accessibility to meet ADA requirements present exceptional circumstances
that warrant the need to construct a retaining wall that exceeds the height lim itations
established in the RPVMC. Although other Institutional-zoned properties in the City
were developed with similar topographic conditions, the project site is unique in that it
was previously developed as an elementary school and the project proposes to re-
develop the site but maintain the existing park’s tiered layout but meet current
accessibility requirements without conducting substantially more grading that would
disturb the overall site. As such, this finding can be made.
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other
property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district;
F-13
The construction of the proposed retaining wall up to 15½ feet in height are necessary
for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right, which right is
possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district.
The project site is encumbered by steep topographical conditions in certain areas of the
project site, including transitional slopes between the various tiers of the park that are
not present in other developed Institutional zoned properties. As a public facility, owned
and operated by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the City is required to provide for
ADA accessibility throughout the site and to ensure the safety of the public . As such,
this finding can be made.
3. That granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the
property is located; and,
The construction of the proposed retaining wall up to 15½ feet in height in order to
accommodate an ADA access ramp will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to property and improvement in the area, as the construction of the
proposed wall will be reviewed and inspected by the City’s Building and Safety Division
for conformance with the California Building Code and associated geological
requirements. In addition, the proposed retaining wall will support the transition slope
between the middle and upper tiers of the park. Not granting the Variance application
request for the construction of retaining walls up to 15½ feet in height and not
accommodating an ADA accessible ramp would in fact be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to visitors of the park. Furthermore, the face of the retaining
walls will be screened with landscaping and include areas of terracing, so as to soften
the appearance and scale of the structure. A rendering of the proposed retaining wall
along with landscape improvements is attached to this staff report (Attachment I). As
such, this finding can be made.
4. That granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the
general plan or the policies and requirements of the coastal specific plan.
The variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or the policies
and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan. The project site is not located in the
City’s Coastal Specific Plan. The use of the property as a community center and park is
consistent with the City’s updated General Plan. The Conservation and Open Space
Element (Pg. COS-6) of the City’s General Plan includes goals and policies related to
Open-Space and Recreation Resources, which promote public access to all recreational
land and building additional parks and playfields, where appropriate, for multiple use by
various groups. The proposed retaining wall with an overall height of 15 ½ feet, will
provide enhanced ADA accessibility to recreational land and for the use of various
groups. As such, this finding can be made.
c. Major Grading Permit
Pursuant to RPVMC §17.76.040(B)(2)(a), a Major Grading Permit is required for
projects that result in an excavation, fill or combination thereof, in excess of 50 cubic
yards in any two-year period. Since a total of 9,000 cubic yards combined grading
F-14
(4,500 cubic yards of cut and 4,500 cubic yards of fill) as part of the project request, a
Major Grading Permit is required. RPVMC §17.76.040(E) sets forth the criteria (in bold
type) that the Planning Commission was able to make (or the City Council on appeal) to
approve the required Major Grading application:
1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted
primary use of the lot;
The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of
the lot. The proposed project is in an Institutional Zoning District, in which the primary
use of the lot is a park and community center. The new park and community center will
serve all residents and the community, particularly those located on the east side of the
City, as an area for recreational opportunities as well as for emergency preparedness
activities such as, but not limited to, a cooling center, storage location, and emergency
evacuation center. The proposed 9,000 yd3 of grading will be balanced on-site therefore
avoiding the need to export or import soil or rock. Furthermore, the proposed grading
will be limited to the existing developed portions of the site, which have been previously
graded and disturbed to support existing improvements. The project grading proposes
targeted cut and fill into portions of the existing site to accommodate the proposed park
and community center, parking lot, tiered seating, walking paths, ADA compliant
accessible ramp, and other ancillary park improvements. In addition, the proposed
grading will enhance adequate drainage of the site. As such, this finding can be made.
2. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly
adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from the viewing
area of neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for a new
residence or an addition to an existing residence, this finding shall be
satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under
the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure, as
measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(B) of the Municipal Code, is lower
than a structure that could have been built in the same location on the lot if
measured from preconstruction (existing) grade;
The proposed project and associated grading will not significantly adversely affect the
visual relationships with, nor the views from the viewing areas of neighboring properties
because the project site is currently improved with an existing park, building facilities,
and ancillary site improvements. The proposed grading will continue to accommodate a
park use and a single community center building that would be less than 40% of the
total area of the existing facility. In addition, the new community center would occupy a
smaller footprint than the community center buildings within the existing built areas of
the Park. The proposed building height will not create a significant adverse effect, as the
height of the community center, as a result of the site grading, will not impact vi ews as
observed from neighboring properties due to the topographic conditions in the area.
Residential properties to the east and south of the project site have views of the ocean
and Catalina Island oriented in the opposite direction of the proposed build ing. Finally,
the building pad of the proposed community center will be located approximately 25 feet
below the street of access (Forrestal Drive), whereby views from the street and adjacent
F-15
trails can be observed over the proposed building height. As such, this finding can be
made.
3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and
finished contours are reasonably natural;
The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished
contours are reasonably natural because the proposed grading is generally limited to
developed portions of the site. In addition, the proposed grading maintains a majority of
the existing contours surrounding the developed areas on the project site. The project
proposes to maintain the existing transitional slope along the south and southwest of
the site as well as the slopes between the project site and Forrestal Drive. The finished
contours of the project will blend with the existing contours on the existing site. As such,
this finding can be made.
4. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic
features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any
man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography;
The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and
appearances by means of land sculpturing. The project site has been previously graded
in order to accommodate the existing park, parking lot and ancillary site improvements.
The proposed grading is generally limited to developed portions of the site to support
the construction of ADA-compliant ramp. Moreover, the proposed grading generally
follows the existing slope of the property and results in finished slopes that appear
reasonably natural. Additionally, although some land-sculpturing is proposed to occur, it
is designed so as to blend the manufactured slopes into the natural topography. As
such, this finding can be made.
5. For new single-family residence, the grading and/or related construction is
compatible with the immediate neighborhood character;
The proposed grading does not involve a new single-family residence and therefore this
criterion does not apply.
6. In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the
preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from
soil erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading and
construction on hillside areas;
The proposed grading does not involve a new residential tract and theref ore this
criterion does not apply.
7. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to
minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and
character of the hillside;
The proposed project does not involve modification s to streets or other public
F-16
infrastructure and therefore, this criterion does not apply.
8. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the
natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation;
The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation because the proposed
grading area does not contain natural landscape or wildlife habitat. The proposed
grading is limited to areas of the project site that have been previously graded to
accommodate existing structures and ancillary site improvements. As such, this finding
can be made.
9. The grading conforms to standards related to grading on slopes equal to or
exceeding 35%; fill and cut depths; grading on slopes exceeding 50%
gradient; number and location of retaining walls and driveways:
The grading conforms to the City’s standards for grading on slopes, maximum finished
slopes, maximum depth of cut and fill, and retaining wall heights with the exception
grading on slopes over 50% steepness and the construction of a retaining wall up to 6
feet-11 inches in height along the driveway in the immediate area of the mechanical and
refuse enclosures. The proposed grading over slopes with 50% and the retaining wall
are consistent with the purpose of the Grading Permit because it will result in the
reasonable development of the project site. In addition, the proposed grading and
retaining wall will contribute to the overall site accessibility and retention of groundcover
to aid against flooding, erosion and other similar hazards. Furthermore, the sce nic
character of the neighborhood would not be altered as the retaining wall along the
driveway would not be readily visible from the public right-of-way as the location of the
wall will be located below the Forrestal Drive street level. The proposed grading and
retaining wall will comply with the goals and policies of the General Plan, as the project
supports policies for public health/ safety related to the environment. More specifically,
the proposed retaining wall is required to be designed to performan ce standards that
ensure both engineering standards and the topographic treatment of slopes on the
property. Furthermore, the City’s geotechnical consultant and the Building Official will
be required to review and approve engineered grading plans prior to grading permit
issuance and inspections will be conducted throughout the construction process. With
these provisions, the proposed deviation will not cause a detrimental impact to public
safety and/or other properties in the vicinity of the project. Notice of this decision shall
be given to all owners of property adjacent to the property.
d. Site Plan Review
Pursuant to RPVMC § 17.70.010, the Site Plan Review procedure enables the Planning
Commission (or the City Council on Appeal) to check development proposals for
conformity with the provisions of the Municipal Code and for the manner in which they
are applied, when no other application is required. As the project proposes a number of
ancillary site improvements, including but not limited to, parking, a 400 ft2 storage
facility, and mechanical equipment, a Site Plan Review is required to ensure compliance
with the Institutional zoning designation of the project site. Based on a review of the
F-17
project plans, the proposed project including, but not limited to, the accessory
structures, flag-pole, mechanical equipment and parking was determined by the
Planning Commission to comply with applicable code requirements such as
development setbacks.
e. Environmental Analysis
The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed project is Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
pursuant to § 15302 of the State CEQA Guidelines—Class 2, Replacement or
Reconstruction. The proposed project meets the requirements of Class 2, as it consists
of the reconstruction of an existing facility where the new structure will be located on the
same site as the structure(s) replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and
capacity. A Class 2 Categorical Exemption Evaluation Report and Cultural Resources
memorandum (Attachment F) were prepared to provide supplemental information
related to staff’s environmental assessment.
Based on the analysis above, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed
Ladera Linda Community Center and Park project is consistent with the requested CUP,
Variance, Major Grading Permit and Site Plan Review applications and that all the
associated permit findings for the project can be affirmatively made. Attached for the
City Council’s consideration is a draft resolution, including conditions of approval,
memorializing the findings made for the required planning entitlements (Attachment A)
4. Public Comments
As part to the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Ladera Linda Community
Center and Park project, Staff received a wide range of public comments both in
support and opposition to the proposed project. In response to the public notice that
was issued on March 11th, announcing the City Council’s appeal consideration, Staff
received an additional 33 comments as of the preparation of this report. The comments
in opposition expressed concerns related to, but not limited to, design, compatibility,
traffic, safety, and facility/park use. The table on the next page summarizes public
comments and provides a staff analysis of the issues, as well as any corresponding
Planning Commission-approved Conditions of Approval or newly proposed conditions of
approval intended to address the concern (please note that newly proposed Conditions
of Approval are identified with the “New” notation):
F-18
Table No. 1- Public Comment Analysis
Summary of
Comment
Project Clarification and/or
Staff Analysis
Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
Community
Center
Structure Size
Public
comments
requested
clarification
regarding the
overall size of
the proposed
community
center and
Community
Centers at
Hesse Park,
Ryan Park and
PVIC.
Ladera Linda
Community
Center:
• 6,790 ft2
(enclosed
building
areas)
• 13,720 ft2
(building
footprint
including
extended
roof eves)
Hesse Park
Community
Center
(approx.):
• 7,901 ft2
(enclosed
building
areas)
• 9,130 ft2
(building
footprint
including
extended
roof eves)
Ryan Park
(approx.):
• 1,379 ft2
(enclosed
building
areas)
• 2,208 ft2
(building
footprint
including
extended
roof eves)
PVIC
(approx.):
• 10,781 ft2
(enclosed
building
areas)
• 13,365 ft2
(building
footprint
including
extended
roof eves)
None
F-19
Summary of
Comment
Project Clarification and/or
Staff Analysis
Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
Traffic
Conditions
Public
comments
expressed
concerns with
the project
impacts on
traffic conditions
in the immediate
aera of the site.
Willdan Engineering prepared
a Traffic Impact Analysis
(Attachment G), which
determined that:
• The park does not create a
cumulative impact on traffic
within the City.
• Traffic on Forrestal Drive is
mostly attributed to the only
outlet to over 160 single
family homes off Pirate
Drive.
• The proposed community
center and park do not
affect the traffic signal
warrant at the intersection
of Palos Verdes Drive
South and Forrestal/Trump
National. The traffic signal
was warranted based on
weekend traffic volumes
due to AYSO soccer
matches, Trump National
traffic and residential trips
accessing the intersection.
None
On-Site
Security
The public
raised security
and safety
concerns related
to the proposed
project and
design.
Robust security features will
be developed by a security
specialist and incorporated
into the final design, including
but not limited to:
• Clear points of entry and
improved sightlines;
• Surveillance cameras;
• Low-level landscaping;
• Control of ingress and
egress points;
• Glass break sensors;
• Fencing and improved
entrance gates;
• Drop down gates to
preclude access to
Condition Nos.
28 - 31
F-20
Summary of
Comment
Project Clarification and/or
Staff Analysis
Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
restroom and wash areas
during non-operating hours;
• Lighting; and
• Increased park supervision.
The driveway entrance from
Forrestal will be gated and
locked during non-operating
hours.
Building
Design
Public
comments
expressed
project concerns
with the glass
façade; climate
control;
extended roof
eves, open
restroom design;
neighborhood
compatibility
(Please see the
‘Potential
Project
Modifications’
section of this
report of more
information)
Total wall surface area and
glass wall/glass door area
were reduced from the City
Council design-approved
project in August 2019,
including a 9% reduction in
total wall area, a 31%
reduction in glass wall area
and a 30% increase in solid
wall area. The glass areas of
the building incorporate high
performance glazing.
Furthermore, as currently
designed, the Community
Center incorporates roll down
black-out blinds on the
interior of the building.
The proposed community
center is designed with
extended roof eves around
the perimeter of the building.
The extended roof eves serve
to provides shade, reduces
the amount of air conditioning
needed, reduces the overall
cost of the building, provides
a circulation route around and
into the building, and allows
for overflow from classes and
events where appropriate,
given use and amplified
sound conditions. The overall
size of the building footprint
Condition Nos.
30-34
F-21
Summary of
Comment
Project Clarification and/or
Staff Analysis
Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
with extended roof eves is
approximately 13,720 ft2.
The Planning Commission-
approved Conditions of
Approval include provisions to
secure the open lobby,
restroom and accompanying
sink areas with a roll-down
gate and automatically shut-
off the water to the wash area
on a nightly basis.
The Community Center is
designed as a single-story
structure with articulated
facades that include
vernacular finished materials
(glass, wood, concrete) that
are found in the immediate
area.
Project
Lighting
Public
comments
expressed
concerns with
the proposed
project lighting
and illumination
impacts to
neighboring
properties.
Project lighting has been
designed to:
• illuminate the ground
surface for safety;
• not illuminate park areas
that will not be used
during night hours;
• provide minimum lighting
for the operation of
surveillance cameras,
security patrols and park
personnel surveillance;
and to achieve code-
required illumination for
egress.
Condition Nos.
56-63
Seismic Public
comments
voiced seismic
concerns with
the glass
building design.
Proposed Conditions of
Approval require project
review and approval by the
City’s Geologist prior to
Grading or Building Permit
issuance.
Condition No.
21
F-22
Summary of
Comment
Project Clarification and/or
Staff Analysis
Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
Community
Center Rooms
Public
comments
expressed
concerns with
the number and
size of
community
center rooms.
Use Analysis (Attachment H)
of existing and proposed
facility use at Ladera Linda
Park determined that the
proposed project will result in
a reduction of available space
for classes, rentals and other
programing.
None
Museum &
Amphitheater
Public
comments
expressed
concerns with a
museum and
amphitheater.
The proposed project does
not include a museum or
amphitheater, but rather a
660 ft2 multi-use meeting
room that also includes some
interactive displays and 775
ft2 outdoor tiered seating area
built into an existing slope.
The project architect,
Johnson Favaro, prepared a
grading exhibit that depicts
proposed grading between
the middle- and upper-tiers of
the park, which included a
rendering of the proposed
tiered seating area
(Attachment I).
None
Discovery
Room
Exhibits
Concerns were
expressed with
the incorporation
of the existing
Discovery Room
exhibits into the
project.
The current Discovery Room
is a single-use 961 ft2 room at
Ladera Linda full of geologic,
cultural and static animal
artifacts and displays.
The proposed new design
does not include a stand-
alone dedicated Discovery
Room. In its place, is a 660
ft2 multi-use meeting room
with a capacity of 16 people.
Designed for small meetings,
the room has wall spaces and
built-in cabinets to display a
fraction of the Discovery
Room’s total exhibits. There
is no space in the proposed
Condition No.
72 (New)
F-23
Summary of
Comment
Project Clarification and/or
Staff Analysis
Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
building to store these items.
A Condition of Approval is
proposed that would require
that the exhibits be placed in
storage containers at the
Point Vicente Interpretive
Center or alternate location to
be determined prior to
construction.
Other
Improvements
Public
Comments
suggested that
the Community
Center would
include shower
facilities.
The proposed design does
not include shower facilities.
None
Silhouette
Public
comments
requested that a
building
silhouette be
constructed.
The Planning Commission-
approved Conditions of
Approval do not include
provisions that require the
construction of a project
silhouette prior to
construction. A project
silhouette is not required as
the project plans include 3-D
renderings and a community
center model was developed.
Furthermore, the Planning
Commission determined that
the community center will not
significantly impair views from
neighboring properties.
None
Noise Public
comments
expressed
concerns with
noise impacts
The Planning Commission-
approved Conditions of
Approval include a
comprehensive list of noise
restrictions and requirements
related to mechanical
equipment, deliveries, and
amplified noise.
Condition Nos.
65-68
F-24
Project Cost Public
comments
express a
concern with the
cost of the
proposed
project.
Please see Staff’s analysis in
the ‘Project Cost’ section of
this report.
None
Parking Public
comments
request that
more project
parking be
provided.
Willdan Engineering traffic
and parking analysis
determined that the proposed
54 on-site parking spaces will
more than accommodate park
and community center needs.
Condition Nos.
46-50.
Compliance
Review
Concerns were
expressed on
operational
impacts.
The Planning Commission-
approved Conditions of
Approval include a one-year
review (or earlier) to assess
community center operations,
at which time conditions may
be added, deleted or modified
accordingly.
Condition No. 2
Enforcement
of Conditions
Concerns were
expressed with
the enforcement
of proposed
Conditions
Enforcement of conditions will
occur through compliance
review, park supervision and
signage.
None
Based on the discussion above, Staff is of the opinion that additional clarification has
been provided to further address public comments and concerns with the proposed
project. Furthermore, in response to the public comments, the Planning Commission -
approved Conditions of Approval include a comprehensive set of provisions to mitigate
negative project impacts.
5. Planning Commission Project Recommendations
As part of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Ladera Linda Community Center
and Park project applications, the Planning Commission also provided a number of
recommendations, adopted via minute order, for the City Council’s consideration to
further address project impacts (Attachment J). The table below identifies the
recommendations along with staff’s analysis and/or associated action(s):
F-25
Table 2. Planning Commission Project Recommendations
Recommendation Staff’s Analysis Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
Develop parking and traffic
strategies for Preserve
Access, AYSO activities, and
the Community Center that
limits parking on residential
streets and long wait times at
PVD South. Strategies to
include:
A. Collection of traffic data
and usage in the vicinity
of the park, so as to
develop a baseline by
which to assess future
project-specific traffic
and parking impacts;
B. Consider
implementation of traffic
calming measures, in
order to provide
immediate traffic relief
in the area; and
C. Develop a parking
permit program in the
area of the project site
A. Add new Condition of
Approval requiring the City
to collect baseline traffic
data in the area of the park,
prior to grading and
construction activities.
B. Installation of the traffic
signal at Palos Verdes
Drive South and Palos
Verdes Drive East is
expected to begin in the
spring of 2021 and be
completed in the summer of
2021. Additionally, a
Citywide traffic and speed
study is being prepared that
will assess, among other
areas, this intersection.
C. Add new Condition of
Approval requiring the City
to perform a parking
demand analysis to assess
alternatives for the
development of a parking
management program as
part of the annual
compliance review
Condition Nos.
73 and 74
Explore ways to prioritize
community center and park
use for City residents.
The City Attorney’s Office
reviewed the request and
determined that preferential
treatment to residents needs
to be justified by rational basis
and supported by relevant
evidence.
Additionally, it is anticipated
that the majority of community
center and park users will be
City residents based on usage
at Hesse Park. In review of
the 2019 data, the last full year
prior to the pandemic, shows
that 94% of reserved hours at
None
F-26
Recommendation Staff’s Analysis Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
Hesse Park’s McTaggert Hall
were used by either RPV
resident non-profits or RPV
resident private rentals. The
remaining 6% were a
combination of non-resident or
non-profit private rentals.
Facility Rental Group
Breakdown:
Group I
• City Sponsored Events,
Gov. Agencies, Peninsula
Residents, Public or
Candidates Forums, RPV
HOA’s, Peninsula Seniors
Groups, Peninsula Non-Profit,
Civic, Social and Youth
Organizations with Non-Paid
Management.
Group II
• Non-Resident HOA’s,
Non-Resident Non-Profit,
Civic, Social and Youth
Organizations with Paid
Management.
Group III
• RPV Residents/Private
Party Activities, Resident
Commercial and Religious
Organizations.
Group IV
• Non-Residents/Private
Party Activities, Non-Resident
Commercial and Religious
Organizations.
Lastly, Staff is of the opinion
that park use restrictions are
not warranted, as the park
does not create a cumulative
impact on traffic and the
F-27
Recommendation Staff’s Analysis Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
project and Planning
Commission-approved
Conditions of Approval provide
sufficient measures to reduce
project impacts in the area.
Assess current and future
usage of proposed park
improvements, such as the
basketball and paddleball
courts, to ensure balance of
recreational opportunities and
adequate facilities.
During community workshops
and meetings regarding this
project, there was strong local
community support for
maintaining existing
recreational components.
During the outreach process,
there was limited support for
expanding the quantity of
existing facilities.
None
Address public safety
concerns and parking impacts
of stairs that provide access
from the park’s court area to
the soccer fields owned by the
Palos Verdes Unified School
District.
Given the age of the stairs,
their relatively poor condition,
and the fact that they are not
currently intended to provide
for access to or from the
soccer field, a Condition of
Approval is recommended to
remove the stairs as part of
the park reconstruction.
Condition No. 75
Staff is of the opinion that the Planning Commission’s recommendations and associated
Conditions of Approval serve to further address any project impacts as well as to ensure
that new Ladera Linda Community Center and Park remains compatible to with the
surrounding land uses.
6. Modified Conditions of Approval
Based on the Planning Commission’s recommendations and a reassessment of the
adopted Conditions of Approval, Staff proposes that the City Council consider adding
the following conditions of approval to the Commission-adopted conditions:
• Condition No. 72- Prior to on-site grading or construction activities, the City shall
place all Discovery Room exhibits/displays into storage at Point Vicente
Interpretive Center or at other City facilities as deemed appropriate. After
construction is complete, the exhibits/displays that are not incorporated into the
Discovery Room, shall remain in storage.
• Condition No. 73 - Prior to on-site grading or construction activities, the City shall
conduct a traffic engineering study to collect baseline traffic data in the area of
F-28
the park.
• Condition No. 74 - The City shall perform a parking demand analysis to assess
alternatives for the development of a parking management program as part of the
annual compliance review.
• Condition No. 75 - The access stairs between the upper tier of the project site
and the adjacent property in the area of the lower soccer fields shall be removed
as part of the park reconstruction.
7. Additional Information
Potential Project Modifications
Through the public comment process, Staff received a number of comments
recommending modifications to the design of the proposed Community Center . During
the Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed project, the Planning
Commission was directed to focus on the land-use/planning entitlements and to not to
make design modifications to the Community Center, as design modifications would
present fiscal impacts and project schedule extensions that would be under the purview
of the City Council. The table below summarizes the potential project modifications
along with Staff’s analysis, which includes an assessment of fiscal and project schedule
impacts as well as any corresponding Condition(s) of Approval for the City Council’s
consideration. The table also includes a Planning Commission conditioned project
modification requiring that the lobby breeze, restroom and accompanying sink areas be
secured with roll-down gates as well as shutting off the water to the wash area on a
nightly basis. Please note that visual representations of the project modifications
that would add security gates, enclose the breezeway or add a corridor
(Modifications 1-4) are available in Attachment K of this report.
Table 3. Project Modifications and Analysis
Project Modification Staff’s Analysis Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
1. Secure Community Center
lobby breeze, restroom and
accompanying sink areas with
roll down security gates as well
as shutting off the water to the
wash area on a nightly basis
(Commission-approved).
$45,000 approximate
cost increase; No
schedule increase.
Condition No.
31 (included as
part of the
proposed
Conditions of
Approval)
2. Enclosing the Community
Center lobby breezeway (but
not restrooms).
$100,000 approximate
cost increase;1 month
schedule increase;
changes to building plan
backgrounds and
None
F-29
Project Modification Staff’s Analysis Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
involves all consultants;
requires re-design and
City approval of re-
design before
proceeding with
Construction Document
Phase.
3. Enclosing the Community
Center restrooms (but not the
lobby).
$175,000 approximate
cost increase; 2 month
schedule increase;
requires re-design and
City approval of re-
design before
proceeding with
Construction Document
Phase.
None
4. Creating an enclosed corridor
along the north side of the
Community Center enclosing
the lobby and restrooms.
$1,550,000 approximate
cost increase; 3 month
schedule increase; will
require the building to
move south on the site to
accommodate a
separation between the
building and parking lot;
increased annual
operating costs with
added interior floor area;
requires re-design and
City approval of re-
design before
proceeding with
Construction Document
Phase.
None
5. Modifying the flat roof design
of the Community Center to a
pitched roof design.
$1,325,000 approximate
cost increase; City
Council was presented
with a wide range of roof
options in October 2019
with comparative costs
for each option. Cost
increase is associated
with added building
material and increased
cost to operations due to
None
F-30
Project Modification Staff’s Analysis Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
added volume to the
interior.
6. Removing Discovery Room ($35,795) approximate
cost decrease; the
Discovery Room is not a
dedicated room, but
rather a part of the
660 ft2 multi-function
meeting room, whereby
the multi-purpose room
can function as a
“Discovery Room” when
displays built into the
walls are turned visibly
outward; eliminating this
feature will not cause a
reduction in floor area or
size of building footprint;
cost savings are for
fixtures only.
None
Based on the analysis above, all changes other than the installation of roll-down
security gates at the restroom area and lobby breezeway will result in a significant
increase to the project budget and the project schedule. More specifically, th e
modifications requiring major project revisions (i.e. creating an enclosed corridor) will
require the project architect and associated consultant team to step-back into the
Design Development Phase before proceeding to the Construction Document Phase.
Staff is of the opinion that the incorporation of the roll down security gates augments the
project’s comprehensive set of safety and security measures, which include, but are not
limited to, surveillance cameras, lighting, fencing and increased site supervision.
Project Cost
The following discussion encompasses a financial analysis of costs incurred to date and
committed expenditures, project construction cost estimate, operating and maintenance
cost estimates, and a summary of potential procurement and financing options.
a. Year-to-Date Expenditures and Commitments
To date, the project cost is approximately $849,993 based on year-to-date expenditures
and committed expenditures, as described in greater detail below. From 2016 to March
12, 2021, the City has expended almost $550,000 in both the General Fund and the
Quimby Fund toward the development of the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park
Project. Of this amount, $263,000 or 48% was expended on design with Johnson
Favaro and $184,000 or 34% was expended on the master plan with Richard Fisher
F-31
and Associates. The remaining $102,000 or 19% was expended on surveys,
environmental review, financial services, traffic study, and other miscellaneous services.
At this time, the project has almost $300,000 committed for design services, CEQA
analysis, and financial services. Table 4 below page summarizes the project year-to-
date expenditures and outstanding commitments by categories and funds.
Table 4. Year-to-Date Expenditures and Commitments
*YTD as of March 1, 2021
b. Project Construction Cost Estimate
Pursuant to the project description stated earlier in this report, the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park Project has two major components, which include the
community center building and the park ground improvements. The enclosed building is
approximately 6,790 ft2 while the building footprint which includes the enclosed interior
of the building and covered walkways and eaves is approximately 13,720 ft2. The total
overall project, community center building and park improvements, encompass
approximately 273,600 ft2 or 6.3 acres out of a total site of approximately 11 acres.
The estimated total construction cost for both the community center building and park
grounds is approximately $15.7 million. This cost includes the construction costs,
escalation costs, and soft costs associated with the project. The escalation cost of
YEAR-TO-DATE EXPENDITURES Amount Funding
Anderson Penna - Survey/Geotech 62,883$ 334 - Quimby
Richard Fisher and Associates - Master Plan 184,045$ 334 - Quimby
Priority One Environmental - Environmental Review 1,500$ 334 - Quimby
Willdan - traffic study for PC meeting 10,175$ 101 - General Fund
Michael Baker - CQEA analysis for PC meeting 3,599$ 101 - General Fund
Johnson Favaro - Design 263,131$ 334 - Quimby
Cal-Water - water pressure fire flow 525$ 334 - Quimby
Kosmont - Financial services 23,277$ 101 - General Fund
Total year-to-date expenditures 549,135$
OUTSTANDING COMMITMENTS
Anderson Penna - Survey/Geotech -$ 334 - Quimby
Johnson Favaro - Design 290,069$ 334 - Quimby
Michael Baker - CQEA analysis for PC meeting 8,006$ 101 - General Fund
Kosmont - Financial services 1,723$ 101 - General Fund
Total year-to-date expenditures 299,798$
TOTAL YTD PROJECT COSTS 848,933$
YTD PROJECT COSTS BY FUND Amount
334 - Quimby 802,153$
101 - General Fund 46,780$
TOTAL YTD PROJECT COSTS BY FUND 848,933$
F-32
approximately $550,000 is included in the estimate with a projected construction start
date of December 2021. The projected escalation cost per month is approximately
$31,000 for each month delay from the December 2021 start date.
Table 5 below provides a summary of the total estimated project cost based on the
project scope as approved by the Planning Commission.
Table 5. Total Estimated Construction Cost
*The estimated future costs include rounding and escalation to a projected start date of
December 2021
Table 6. Total Estimated Construction Cost per FT²
*The estimated future costs include rounding and escalation to a projected start date of
December 2021
The soft costs are estimated as a percentage of hard costs based on staff experience;
the percentages applied can vary depending on project manager judgement and the
organizational structure and staffing of Public Works departments.
HARD COSTS Amount
Community Center (enclosed areas and covered areas) 5,700,000$
Sitework (demolition of existing buildings, site prep, etc.) 6,700,000$
Furnishings, fixtures, equipment (FFEs)300,000$
Sub-total of construction costs 12,700,000$
Construction contigency (5%)640,000$
Total estimated construction costs 13,340,000$
SOFT COSTS
Construction management (5%)640,000$
Construction inspection (7.5%)950,000$
Permitting (2%)250,000$
Hazardous materials abatement (1%)130,000$
Engineering support during construction (3%)380,000$
Total estimated soft costs 2,350,000$
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS 15,690,000$
Description Area Amount Unit
Community Center (40%)6,276,000$
Sitework (60%)9,414,000$
15,690,000$
Structural framed area (ft²)13,720.00 457.43$ per ft²
Enclosed building areas (ft²) 6,790.00 924.30$ per ft²
Park ground (ft²)259,870.00 36.23$ per ft²
Overall project (ft²)273,590.00 57.35$ per ft²
F-33
The estimated construction costs for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park
have been publicly compared to other facility projects in nearby communities. However,
the publicly stated costs for other projects, do not include soft costs such engineering,
management, permitting, and inspection; escalation to projected year of construction;
furnishings, fixtures, and equipment (FFEs); special requirements; and contingencies.
These costs can increase the project totals by at least 30% to 50%, particularly when
projects are in the early planning stages.
Table 7. Comparison between the George F Canyon Nature Center and the Ladera
Linda Community Center
c. Phased Construction Cost
Should City Council decide to phase the project, e.g., build only one section of building
now and the remainder later, costs are almost certain to increase. First, a decision will
need to be made as to what is to be included in the first phase, which will require an
iterative scoping phase and a phasing plan. There will be additional costs for multiple
bidding processes, and plan revisions as building codes may change prior to permitting
later phases. Next, phased construction requires additional mobilizations and
secondary impacts to neighbors. There will be the need to join existing construction
and match materials. Additionally, phasing loses the advantage of economy of scale for
construction of improvements and for engineering, inspection, and construction
management. Lastly, there will likely be increased construction costs due inflationary
cost escalation affecting materials and contactors’ overhead, as well costs associated
with operational impacts.
d. Operating & Maintenance Costs
Currently, Ladera Linda Community Center and Park has one part-time employee per
shift who is overseen by a full-time recreation supervisor. The estimated operating and
maintenance costs for FY 2020-21 is approximately $191,000. Staff estimates the
operating and maintenance costs for the new facility and park to be less than $210,000.
The estimate includes staffing, supplies, utilities, maintenance, playground equipment
repair, and fuel modification. Due to the health emergency order and the shutdown of
park facilities, staffing and supplies for FY 2020-21 is lower than a typical year. Staff
anticipates that the new facility will require more staffing (as previously reported) and
supplies. However, staff anticipates that the newer facility will not have the same
George F Canyon
Nature Center
Ladera Linda
Community Center
Building 1,750 6,790
Structural framed area 3,355 13,720
Estimated costs w/out soft costs and contingency 1,694,376$ 5,080,000$
Cost per ft²505$ 370$
F-34
maintenance needs and will more energy efficiency, so staff is projecting these to
remain flat or just a modest increase. Table 8 below illustrates the increase of the
operating and maintenance budget of the new facility to FY 2020-21.
Table 8. Proposed Operating & Maintenance Costs
e. Procurement and Financing Options
In October 2019, the City entered into a Municipal Advisory and Consulting Services
agreement with Kosmont Transaction Services (KTS). The scope of the agreement is
for KTS to identify alternative financing options based on the 2019 City Council's
approved design for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project. KTS
presented the procurement and financing options to the Finance Advisory Committee
(FAC) on February 25, 2021. A copy of the presentation given to the FAC on February
25 is attached (Attachment L).
According to the presentation provided to the FAC, there are generally two major
components to consider funding this City capital project:
I. Procurement Options
o Traditional
▪ The City is responsibility from start to finish of the project.
▪ May take longer to complete.
▪ Flexible financing options.
o Total Project Delivery
▪ The City is not responsible for the project installation.
▪ Guaranteed delivery.
▪ Limited to lease payment.
o Design-Build
▪ One contractor to design and build.
▪ The City is responsibility from start to finish of the project.
▪ Streamline process to reduce the time to complete.
▪ Flexible financing options.
FY 2020-21 Proposed Increase
Salaries & benefits 47,400 127,300 79,900
Supplies 1,000 6,500 5,500
Utilities 28,200 27,700 (500)
Maintenance 115,000 76,800 (38,200)
TOTAL 191,600 238,300 46,700
F-35
The P3 (public private partnership) model was not presented as a procurement option
because of the size of the project. A desirable P3 project for most developers would have
to be in the range of $50 million or more. Moreover, since most of the design work has
been completed, it too is less desirable for a P3 developer.
II. Financing Options
o Current Resources
▪ Cash reserve
▪ Grants
▪ Special revenues
o Issue Securities
▪ Loan
▪ General Obligation Bonds – requires an affirmative vote of 2/3 of
registered voters
▪ Lease Revenue Bonds – no voter requirement
o Lease
▪ Direct Lease – non-tax exempt, term of less than 30 years
▪ Total Project Delivery – tax exempt, 30-year term
As illustrated on Page 11 of the FAC presentation (Attachment L), financing 100% of the
project is the most expensive financing method. The general obligat ion bond requires
an affirmative vote of 2/3 and has to be on a ballot during a November election. The
lease revenue bond does not require a 2/3 vote but it needs a good credit rating to take
advantage of a low interest rate. A capital loan with iBank is s ubject to credit check and
project review. These financing options have at least a 20-year term. Table 9 below
provides an example of the financing cost per $1 million as presented by KTS on
February 25, 2021.
Table 9. Financing Comparison Per $1 Million
Based on the information provided above and discussion at the FAC meeting, if the
project budget is deemed acceptable to the City Council, Staff will bring the information
back to the FAC at a meeting tentatively scheduled for April 22nd for further discussion
and recommendations for consideration by the City Council tentatively at its May 4,
2021 meeting.
Variable 100% Cash
50% Cash
50% Financed 100% Financed
Principal amount N/A $515,000 $1,025,000
Financing costs -$ 10,300$ 20,500$
Total principal & interest payment -$ 789,800$ 1,569,350$
Cash 1,000,000$ 500,000$ -$
Total spent on project 1,000,000$ 1,289,800$ 1,569,350$
All-in interest cost N/A 3.16%3.16%
Average annual payment N/A 26,327$ 52,312$
F-36
Project Timeline
If the City Council approves the requested land -use applications for the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park, the project timeline will be as follows:
• Completion of Construction Documents: approximately three months
• Permitting: approximately two months
• Bidding: approximately four months
Design changes directed by the City Council could increase the project timeline by up to
three months, depending on the changes.
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
Appeal Hearing Participation
Staff invited the Planning Commission Chairman Gordon Leon to participate in the City
Council appeal hearing. Staff also invited Steve Johnson of Johnson Favaro and his
consultant team, including the cost estimator, to participate in the public hearing.
Advisory Committee Update
Staff provided the Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee (IMAC), Civic Center
Advisory Committee (CCAC) and the FAC with a presentation of the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park project for informational purposes.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Provide staff with further project input and continue the public hearing to the May
4, 2021 City Council meeting in order to provide staff with an opportunity to
incorporate feedback.
2. Uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Ladera Linda Community
Center and Park planning entitlements with no modifications to the approved
Conditions of Approval.
3. Overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the Ladera Linda Community
Center and Park planning entitlements thereby denying the project.
F-37
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION-APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
MAJOR GRADING PERMIT, VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR THE LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY CENTER
AND PARK PROJECT WITH MODIFICATIONS TO THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CASE NO. PLCU2020-
0007).
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2019, after a comprehensive public outreach and
engagement effort, the City Council approved the Ladera Linda Community Center and
Park Master Plan, which included approving the design of the replacement Community
Center, landscaping, ancillary site improvements, as well as factors such as park security,
staffing levels and facility rentals; and,
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2019, the City Council reviewed roof design options
and directed Staff to study the installation of a solar roof option as part of the detailed
construction drawings phase; and,
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2020, a 15-day public notice for the public hearing
on the project-required planning entitlements was sent to property owners within a 500 -
foot radius of the project site, interested parties, as well as published in the Peninsula
News; and,
WHEREAS, on December 31, 2020, an amended public notice was issued to
identify additional required project applications that were not previously outlined in the
original public notice; and,
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
regarding the proposed project to review plans for the replacement of the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park, as it relates to Chapter 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Palo
Verdes Municipal Code, and continued the public hearing to February 23, 2021, in order
to provide staff an opportunity to assess input and incorporate project feedback as
necessary; and,
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
to further discuss the subject project and after considering public testimony adopted P.C.
Resolution No. 2021-02, conditionally approving the requested Conditional Use Permit,
Major Grading Permit, Variance and Site Plan review with minute-order recommendations
to the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2021, the City Council Public Facilities
Subcommittee, consisting of Mayor Alegria and Councilmember Cruikshank, notified City
Manager Mihranian to request that an item be placed on the next available agenda for
F-38
the City Council to consider whether to appeal the Planning Commission’s approval of
the subject project; and,
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2021, the City Council approved the filing of an appeal to
the Planning Commission’s approval of the subject project and setting the appeal hearing
date to April 6, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2021, a 15-day public notice of the public hearing
regarding the appeal was provided to all property owners within a 500 foot radius of the
Property and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code the proposed project has been found to be
categorically exempt under Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the CEQA
Guidelines. Specifically, the project consists of the reconstruction of an existing facility
where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure(s) replaced and
will have substantially the same purpose and capacity; and,
WHEREAS, on April 6, 2021, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing,
at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The above recitals are hereby incorporated into this Resolution as
set forth herein.
Section 2: The project involves the demolition of five existing buildings,
parking, ancillary site improvements and landscaping to accommodate the construction
of a new 6,790ft2 single-story community center building measuring 16’-6¼” in height,
parking for 54 cars on-site, play areas, landscaping, ancillary site improvements and
9,000 yd3 of combined balanced on-site grading (4,500 yd3 of cut and 4,500 yd3 of fill).
Section 3: The Conditional Use Permit for the new Ladera Linda Park, 6,790 ft2
single-story community center, play areas, landscaping, and ancillary site improvements
is warranted based on the following findings:
A. The project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
proposed use. The project site is approximately 11.031 acres in size and
currently utilized as a park and Community Center with multiple facility
buildings, surface parking, playground paving, equipment and paddle tennis
F-39
courts, fields, landscaping and emergency preparedness storage
containers. The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing
facilities and improvements, with the exception of the paddle tennis courts,
to construct a single Community Center structure that would be
approximately 37% of the total gross square footage of the existing facility.
Consequently, the new building would occupy a significantly smaller
footprint than the existing buildings and be located in the middle of the
existing built areas of the Park. The proposed Community Center an d
ancillary facilities are sited throughout the 11.031 -acre tiered site, so as to
provide enhanced setbacks to adjacent properties and provide enhanced
line of sight from the perimeter of the property for security purposes. The
proposed 54 on-site parking spaces, which consist of four ADA spaces, four
dedicated spaces for clean air vehicles (one Van ADA space included),
exceed the parking stalls required for both weekend (42 spaces) and
weekday (15 spaces) conditions for the proposed project as outlined in the
latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Parking
Generation Manual (5th Edition, 2019).
B. The proposed project relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the
type and quantity of traffic generated by the use. The project replaces the
existing Community Center facility, comprised of several buildings, with a
single building that would be less than 40% of the total square footage of
the existing facilities. In addition, the new building would occupy a smaller
footprint than the existing Community Center buildings within the existing
built areas of the Park. Furthermore, the Project will not result in any
increases to the existing uses, programming, and activities. Rather, uses,
programming and activities are proposed to be limited and regulated, and
would, therefore, have substantially the same purpose, but with less
capacity than the existing facility that will be replaced. The park does not
create a cumulative impact on traffic within the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes. The traffic on Forrestal Drive is mostly attributed to the only outlet
to over 160 single family homes off Pirate Drive. The proposed Park and
Community Center does not affect the traffic signal warrant at the
intersection of Palos Verdes Drive South and Forrestal/ Trump National.
C. The project site is currently improved with a park use and will continue to
serve as such as part of the proposed project. The new Community Center
will serve all residents and the community, particularly those located on the
east side of the City, as an area for recreational opportunities as well as for
emergency preparedness activities such as, but not limited to, a cooling
center and storage location. The height of the proposed Community Center
is 16 feet- 6 ¼ inches and will not create a significant adverse effect, as
residential properties to the east and south of the project site have views of
the ocean and Catalina Island oriented in the opposite direction of the
F-40
proposed building. Furthermore, the building pad of the proposed
Community Center will be located approximately 25 feet below the street of
access (Forrestal Drive), therefore views from the street and adjacent trails
can be observed over the proposed building height. The project will not
result in any adverse safety or security impacts, as the City Council design -
approved project includes a comprehensive list of safety measures and
designs such as the incorporation of a surveillance system, motion and
glass break sensors, perimeter fencing, and lighting design. The project will
not result in adverse noise impacts as the project incorporates construction
noise regulations, hours of operation for the community center and
limitations on mechanical equipment noise. The project ligh ting will not
result in an adverse impact because the site lighting has been designed to
comply with RPVMC regulations and to provide for park safety and security.
D. The use of the property for a park and community center is consistent with
the Institutional- Public General Plan land use designation for the site. The
project site is currently a park with a community center and will continue to
be utilized as such. The new park and community center will serve all
residents and the community, particularly th ose located on the east side of
the City, as an area for recreational opportunities as well as for emergency
preparedness activities such as, but not limited to, a cooling center and
storage location. Furthermore, the Conservation and Open Space Element
of the City’s 2018 General Plan Update (pg. COS-39) identified the Ladera
Linda Park and Community Center as an Institutional-Public land use with
passive and active amenities including playground and sports equipment,
multipurpose rooms and classrooms as well as ancillary site improvements
including a parking lot and restrooms. The General Plan also notes that a
Master Plan process for the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center was
included in the Parks Master Plan Update.
Section 4: The Variance for the construction of retaining walls up to 15½ feet in
height to support ADA complaint ramps between the middle -tier and upper-tiers of the
park is warranted based on the following findings:
A. The project site was originally developed as an elementary school wit h
multiple classroom buildings and play areas on a three-tiered site due to the
unique and steep topographic conditions in the area, which have been used
as a community center and park facilities since the 1980s. The three tiers
include a lower, middle, and upper tier with 5-foot to 15-foot transitional
slopes between the tiers. The project proposes to maintain the same three-
tier park layout and will also include new accessible walking paths and
ramps to enhance accessibility and walkability throughout th e project site.
In order to accommodate an ADA-compliant accessible ramp between the
middle and upper tiers of the park, the project proposes to construct a
F-41
retaining wall with an overall height of up to 15½ feet. The existing site
development and requirement to provide for enhanced accessibility to meet
ADA requirements present exceptional circumstances that warrant the need
to construct a retaining wall that exceeds the height limitations established
in the RPVMC. Although other Institutional-zoned properties in the City were
developed with similar topographic conditions, the project site is unique in
that it was previously developed as an elementary school and the project
proposes to re-develop the site but maintain the existing park’s tiered layout
but meet current accessibility requirements.
B. The construction of the proposed retaining wall up to 15½ feet in height are
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right, which right is possessed by other property owners under like
conditions in the same zoning district. The project site is encumbered by
steep topographical conditions in certain areas of the project site, including
transitional slopes between the various tiers of the park that are not present
in other developed Institutional zoned properties. As a public facility, owned
and operated by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the City is r equired to
provide for ADA accessibility throughout the site and to ensure the safety of
the public.
C. The construction of the proposed retaining wall up to 15½ feet in height to
accommodate an ADA access ramp will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to property and improvement in the area, as the
construction of the proposed wall will be reviewed and inspected by the
City’s Building and Safety Division for conformance with the California
Building Code and associated geological requirements. In addition, the
proposed retaining wall will support the transition slope between the middle
and upper tiers of the park. Not granting the Variance application request
for the construction of retaining walls up to 15½ feet in height and not
accommodating an ADA accessible ramp would in fact be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to visitors of the park.
D. The variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or
the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan. The project site
is not located in the City’s Coastal Specific Plan. The use of the property as
a park and community center is consistent with the City’s updated General
Plan. The Conservation and Open Space Element (Pg. COS-6) of the City’s
General Plan includes goals and policies related to Open -Space and
Recreation Resources, which promote public access to all recreational land
and building additional parks and playfields, where appropriate, for multiple
use by various groups. The proposed retaining wall with an overall height
of 15 ½ feet, will provide enhanced ADA accessibility to recreational land
and for the use of various groups.
F-42
Section 5: The Major Grading Permit to conduct 9,000 yd3 of combined grading
consisting of 4,500 yd3 of cut and 4,500 yd3 of fill with grading above 5 feet in height is
warranted based on the following findings:
A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted
primary use of the lot. The proposed project is in an Institutional Zoning
District, in which the primary use of the lot is a park and Community Center.
The new park and community center will serve all residents and the
community, particularly those located on the east side of the City, as an
area for recreational opportunities as well as for emergency preparedness
activities such as, but not limited to, a cooling center and storage location.
The proposed 9,000 yd3 of grading will be balanced on-site therefore
avoiding the need to export or import soil or rock. Furthermore, the
proposed grading will be limited to the existing developed portions of the
site, which have been previously graded to support existing improvements.
The project grading proposes targeted cut and fill into po rtions of the
existing site to accommodate the proposed park and community center,
parking lot, tiered seating, walking paths, ADA compliant accessible ramp,
and other ancillary park improvements. In addition, the proposed grading
will enhance adequate drainage of the site.
B. The proposed project and associated grading will not significantly adversely
affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from the viewing areas of
neighboring properties because the project site is currently improved with
an existing park, building facilities, and ancillary site improvements. The
proposed grading will continue to accommodate a park use and a single
community center building that would be less than 40% of the total square
footage of the existing facility. In addition, the new community center would
occupy a smaller footprint than the community center buildings within the
existing built areas of the Park. The proposed building height will not create
a significant adverse effect, as the height of the community center, as a
result of the site grading, will not impact views as observed from neighboring
properties due to the topographic conditions in the area. Residential
properties to the east and south of the project site have views of the ocean
and Catalina Island oriented in the opposite direction of the proposed
building. Finally, the building pad of the proposed community center will be
located approximately 25 feet below the street of access (Forrestal Drive),
whereby views from the street and adjacent trails can be observed over the
proposed building height.
C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and
finished contours are reasonably natural because the proposed grading is
generally limited to developed portions of the site. In addition, the proposed
F-43
grading maintains a majority of the existing contours surrounding the
developed areas on the project site. The project proposes to maintain the
existing transitional slope along the south and southwest of the site as well
as the slopes between the project site and Forrestal Drive. The finished
contours of the project will blend with the existing contours on the existing
site.
D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic
features and appearances by means of land sculpturing . The project site
has been previously graded to accommodate the existing park, parking lot
and ancillary site improvements. The proposed grading is generally limited
to developed portions of the site. Moreover, the proposed grading generally
follows the existing slope of the property and re sults in finished slopes that
appear reasonably natural. Additionally, although some land-sculpturing is
proposed to occur, it is designed so as to blend the manufactured slopes
into the natural topography.
E. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of
the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation
because the proposed grading area does not contain natural landscape or
wildlife habitat. The proposed grading is limited to areas of the project site
that have been previously graded to accommodate existing structures and
ancillary site improvements.
F. The grading conforms to the City’s standards for grading on slopes,
maximum finished slopes, maximum depth of cut and fill, and retaining wall
heights with the exception grading on slopes over 50% steepness and the
construction of a retaining wall up to 6 feet-11 inches in height along the
driveway in the immediate area of the mechanical and refuse enclosures.
The proposed grading over slopes with 50% and the retaining wall are
consistent with the purpose of the Grading Permit because it will result in
the reasonable development of the project site. In additi on, the proposed
grading and retaining wall will contribute to the overall site accessibility and
retention of groundcover to aid against flooding, erosion and other similar
hazards. Furthermore, the scenic character of the neighborhood would not
be altered as the retaining wall along the driveway would not be readily
visible from the public right-of-way as the location of the wall be located
below the Forrestal Drive street level. The proposed grading and retaining
wall will comply with the goals and policies of the General Plan, as the
project supports policies for public health/ safety related to the environment.
More specifically, the proposed retaining wall is required to be designed to
performance standards that ensure both engineering standards and the
topographic treatment of slopes on the property. Furthermore, the City’s
geotechnical consultant and the Building Official will be required to review
F-44
and approve engineered grading plans prior to grading permit issuance and
inspections will be conducted throughout the process. With these
provisions, the proposed deviation will not cause a detrimental impact to
public safety and/or other properties in the vicinity of the project. Notice of
this decision shall be given to the Applicant and to all owners of property
adjacent to the property
Section 6: The Site Plan Review for the proposed ancillary site improvements
including, but not limited to, the accessory structures, flag pole, mechanical equipment
and parking comply with all applicable Code requirements.
Section 7: In order to further mitigate any potential project impacts to
neighboring properties in the area, the City Council also modifies the Planning-
Commission approved Conditions of Approval to include the following Conditions of
Approval:
• Condition No. 72 - Prior to on-site grading or construction activities, the City shall
place all Discovery Room exhibits/displays into storage at Point Vicente
Interpretive Center or at other City facilities as deemed appropriate. After
construction is complete, the exhibits/displays that are not incorporated into the
Discovery Room, shall remain in storage.
• Condition No. 73 - Prior to on-site grading or construction activities, the City shall
conduct a traffic engineering study to collect baseline traffic data in the ar ea of
the park.
• Condition No. 74 - The City shall perform a parking demand analysis to assess
alternatives for the development of a parking management program as part of the
annual compliance review.
• Condition No. 75 - The access stairs between the upper tier of the project site
and the adjacent property in the area of the lower soccer fields shall be removed
as part of the park reconstruction.
Section 8: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code the proposed project has been found to be
categorically exempt under Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the CEQA
Guidelines. Specifically, the project consists of the reconstruction of an existing facility
where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure(s) replaced and
will have substantially the same purpose and capacity.
F-45
Section 9: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption
of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in
the Book of Resolutions of the City Council.
Section 10: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure and/or Section 21167 of the California Public Resources Code.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 6th day of April 2021.
_________________________________
Eric Alegria, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, __________, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 2021-__, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 6, 2021.
__________________________________
CITY CLERK
F-46
EXHIBIT 'A'
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY CENTER AND PARK PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE,
MAJOR GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW
(CASE NO. PLCU-0007)
1. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and
regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply.
2. No later than one year after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the
Community Center building, the City Council shall review the Conditions of
Approval contained herein at a duly noticed public hearing. As part of the review,
the City Council Commission shall assess the project’s compliance with the
Conditions of Approval and the adequacy of the conditions imposed. At that time,
the City Council may add, delete, or modify any conditions of approval as evidence
presented at the hearing demonstrates are necessary and appropriate to address
impacts resulting from operation of the project. Notice of the review hearing shall
be published and provided to owners of property within a 500-foot radius of the
site, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to
the property owner, in accordance with the RPVMC. As part of this review, the City
Council shall consider, among other things, the parking conditions, circulation
patterns, lighting, landscaping, noise, and operational hours. The City Council may
require such subsequent additional reviews, as the City Council deems
appropriate. This provision shall not be construed as a limitation on the City’s ability
to enforce any provision of the RPVMC regarding this project.
The City Council may remand this review to the Planning Commission to provide
recommendations in the advisory capacity. In this case, the Planning Commission
shall conduct a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to public notification
requirements stated above.
3. Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.78.040, the Director of Community Development
is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the
conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same
results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions.
Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a revision and require
approval by the final body that approved the original project, which may require
new and separate environmental review and public notification.
4. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards
F-47
contained in these Conditions of Approval or, if not addressed herein, shall
conform to the Institutional zoning district development standards of the RPVMC,
including but not limited to height, setback standards.
5. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard
shall apply.
6. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the
City with the effective date of this Resolution.
7. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified
on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or
legal non-conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal
or legal non-conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions
or on the stamped APPROVED plans.
8. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess ma terial may
include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded
furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
9. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official. All construction waste and
debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed
on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary
portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms
shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding
property owners, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official.
10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, with no construction
activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in RPVMC Section
17.96.920. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall
not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights -of-
way before 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday,
in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition.
When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on -
site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These
areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and
neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official.
F-48
11. If construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting
property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over
30 calendar days, the City shall provide temporary construction fencing, as defined
in RPVMC Section 17.56.050(C). Unless required to protect against a safety
hazard, temporary construction fencing shall not be erected sooner than 15 days
prior to commencement of construction.
Project Specific Conditions
12. This approval allows for the following:
• Demolition of five existing buildings (18,574 ft2 in gross area), parking,
ancillary site improvements and landscaping;
• Construction of a new 6,790 gross ft2 single-story building (community
center) and adjacent 137 ft2 of covered patio areas with an overall height of
16 feet – 6 ¼ inches;
• Construction of a 400 ft2 storage facility at 12 feet in height for City and
emergency supplies;
• Construction of a 54-stall parking lot located adjacent to building and
playground, including four clean air vehicle spaces;
• Construction of a naturalistic children’s playground area in the upper
terrace;
• Construction of one full basketball court and a half-court basketball court in
the upper terrace;
• Renovation of two existing paddle tennis courts in the upper t errace;
• Construction of walking paths throughout park area along with upper and
lower lawn areas;
• Construction of an outdoor tiered seating area between the middle - and
upper- terraces;
• Construction of a lawn area in the lower terrace;
• Utilization of existing Forrestal Drive entrance into the park;
• Installation of low-impact, native and drought-tolerant landscaping,
including 30-foot to 100-foot buffer zone between the building and southerly
slope;
• 9,000 cubic yards combined balanced on-site grading (4,500 cubic yards of
cut and 4,500 cubic yards of fill);
• Grading cut and fill over 5 feet in height to support an Americans with
Disability Act (ADA) access ramp between the middle- and upper terraces;
• Construction of retaining and combination walls to a maximum height of
15 ½ feet to accommodate accessibility and ADA compliant ramps;
• Installation of a new 12-foot flagpole;
• Construction of mechanical equipment and refuse storage area;
F-49
• Installation of new bike and storage area;
• Installation of vehicular entry gate for park security; and,
• Installation of on-site lighting.
13. The height of the proposed community center shall be 16 feet-6 ¼ inches tall, as
measured from the highest existing grade covered by the structure
(elev. 448.00 feet) to the highest roof ridgeline (464.525 feet).
BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED BY A
LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR CIVIL ENGINEER PRIOR TO ROOF
SHEATHING INSPECTION.
14. The height of the proposed accessory storage building shall not exceed a height
of 12 feet as measured as measured from the lowest preconstruction grade
adjacent to the foundation wall to the ridge.
15. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved
community center building and storage building shall maintain the following
setbacks:
• Front & Street Side- 25 feet (abutting a dedicated street)
• Interior Side & Rear- 20 feet
Grading Permit Conditions
16. The following maximum quantities and depths of grading are approved for the
project site as shown on the grading plan reviewed and approved by the City
Council:
a. 9,000 cubic yards of combined on-site grading (4,500 cubic yards of cut and
4,500 cubic yards of fill) with retaining walls up to 12 feet in height in support
of the proposed improvements.
b. Cut and fill depths up to 10 feet in height
No export or import of earth material shall occur with the exception of base material
and other construction related material.
17. The Director of Community Development shall be authorized to allow deviations to
the project grading quantities up to 200 cubic yards over the stated maximum
quantities for unforeseen circumstances due to conditions encountered in the field
provided that such deviation or modification to the grading quantities achieve
substantially the same results as with the strict compliance with the grading plan.
F-50
Any modifications resulting in additional grading in excess of the above amounts
shall require approval of an amendment to the grading permit by the City Council
at a duly noticed public hearing. This is a balanced grading project. No export or
import of earth shall be permitted, except for rock material or fine grading materials,
such as select fill.
18. Prior to the final inspection of the precise grading, a certified as -built grading plan
prepared and wet-stamped by a license engineer shall be reviewed and approved
by the Building Official and the Director of Public Works. If applicable, the as -built
grading plan shall identify any revisions to the grading plan.
19. For all grading, landscaping and construction activities, the City shall employ
effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
20. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, haul routes to
transport soil shall be approved by the Public Works Department, if applicable.
21. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, the
contractor shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development how dust generated by the grading activities will be mitigated, so as
to comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and the
RPVMC requirements, which require watering for the control of dust.
22. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, the project
geologist shall review and approve final plans and specifications and shall stamp
and sign such plans and specifications.
23. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, the City shall
submit for review and approval a drainage plan that complies with the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for stormwater
discharges.
24. All grading shall be monitored by a licensed engineering geologist and/or soils
engineer in accordance with the applicable provisions of the RPMVC and the
recommendations of the Director of Public Works. Written reports, summarizing
grading activities, shall be submitted on a weekly basis to t he Director of Public
Works and the City’s Building Official.
25. Grading activity on-site shall occur in accordance with all applicable City safety
standards.
26. If applicable, any water features, including bioswales, shall be lined to prevent
percolation of water into the soil. Designs of all water features shall be included on
the grading plans submitted for review by the City’s Building Official and the City’s
F-51
Geologist prior to the issuance of any grading permits.
27. Prior to the final grading inspection by the Building and Safety Division, the graded
slopes shall be properly maintained in accordance with the project landscape plan.
Plan materials shall generally include significant low ground cover to impede
surface water flows.
Safety Conditions
28. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, the
project plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles Count y Fire
Department to ensure compliance with the fire code and fuel modification
requirements.
29. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, the
City shall contract with a security consultant to develop a Safety & Security Plan,
which incorporates the following safety design elements:
• Clear points of entry and improved sight lines in the final design;
• Appropriately placed exterior and interior security cameras and motion
sensors with lighting;
• Appropriate low-level landscaping;
• Control of ingress and egress points during operating hou rs and non-
operating hours;
• Glass break sensors;
• On-site security lighting incorporating comprehensive best practices in
lighting design throughout the park grounds and building;
• Ability to secure park perimeter at night through fencing and improved
entrance gates for both pedestrian and vehicular access points;
• Ability to make restroom and vestibule area secured and inaccessible
during community center non-operating hours;
• Reduction/elimination of blind spots; ,
• Increased utilization of the park combined with increased staff supervision
30. The on-site surveillance system, including security cameras and motion sensors
shall be maintained by the City in perpetuity.
31. The community center open lobby, restrooms and accompanying sink areas shall
be designed to be secured on a nightly basis with a roll-down security gate or other
means to secure the area and prevent hour use.
F-52
Landscape and Park Improvement Conditions
32. A final Landscape Plan shall be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect in
accordance with the standards set forth in the RPVMC. The Landscape Plan shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development, a qualified
Landscape Architect, and/or an Arborist hired by the City, prior to the issuance of
any building or grading permits. The Landscape Plan shall include, at include, a
minimum, the plant species (Latin and common names), growth rate, and
maximum height at maturity of all proposed trees. During the Director’s review, the
Landscape Plan shall also be made available to the public for review.
The Landscape Plan shall comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance, the View Preservation Ordinance, the planting requirements, the
irrigation system design criteria, and all other requirements RPVMC. All new trees
and foliage shall not exceed 16-feet in height, as measured from the grade
adjacent to the tree or foliage. The Landscape Plan shall also include an Integrated
Pest Management Plan that addresses the use of grass-cycling and pesticides for
the lawn and landscape areas.
33. Prior to approval of the landscape plan, the project shall comply with the City’s Low
Impact Development Ordinance, as applicable.
Construction Conditions
34. All construction vehicles onsite shall minimize idling time by requiring that
equipment be shut down after 5 minutes when not in use (as required by the State
airborne toxics control measure, 13 CCR § 2485). Clear signs that lists this
requirement shall be posted with the requirements for workers at the entrances to
the site and provide a plan for the enforcement of this requirement including a
phone number to contact a designated City employee (i.e. project manager).
35. Unless safety provisions require otherwise, the construction contractor shall adjust
all audible back‐up alarms to the lowest volume appropriate for safety purposes
(i.e. still maintaining adequate signal‐to‐noise ratio for alarm effectiveness). The
contractor shall consider signal persons, strobe lights, or alternative safety
equipment and/or processes as allowed for reducing reliance on high ‐amplitude
sonic alarms.
36. The project shall utilize construction equipment equipped with standard noise
insulating features during construction to reduce source noise levels.
37. All project construction equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no
additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts is generated.
F-53
38. Construction of the project should not impede upon any City Council-approved
public trails in the immediate area.
39. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, a
Staging Plan shall be prepared and reviewed by the Director of Community
Development, which includes, but is not limited to, the identification of equipment
staging and construction-associated parking.
Operational Conditions
40. Pursuant to RPVMC Section 12.16.030, the Ladera Linda park ground hours shall
be one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset, seven days a week, or as
designated by City Council action.
41. The Ladera Linda parking lot shall be open at 8:00 a.m. to dusk, seven days a
week, or as designated by City Council action.
42. The Ladera Linda Park Community Center hours shall be 8:00 a.m. to 9 p.m. seven
days a week, or as designated by City Council action. Operating hours may be
extended if rentals are scheduled, or for City conducted business, such as public
meetings.
43. Rental for purposes of the use of the community center shall mean any contracted
or permitted use of a park facility by an individual, business, non -profit, HOA, or
the City, and hours of use shall be limited to between 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
44. Classes (instructor-led class, either private or City-sponsored) shall be conducted
only between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
45. No more than two private rentals per month shall be allowed after 5 :00 p.m. This
restriction shall not apply to non-profits, City events, or HOA rentals.
46. No more than eight special events (a large City-sponsored or permitted private
event) shall be allowed per calendar year. Special events that extend until after
9:00 P.M. shall only be permitted upon approval of a Special Event Permit.
47. All maintenance and grounds-keeping equipment shall be entirely enclosed when
not in use.
Parking Conditions
48. No fewer than 54 on-site parking spaces consisting of 47 standard parking spaces
at a minimum of 9 feet wide by 20 feet deep, one electric vehicle space, one ADA
electric van accessible space, three clean air vehicle spaces and three ADA
F-54
accessible spaces.
49. All parking, loading and access shall comply with RPVMC Chapter 17.50
(Nonresidential Parking and Loading Standards).
50. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, a
Parking Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community
Development that shall include, but not be limited to, parking striping, directional
arrows, wheel stops or curbs, landscaping, way finding signs and other necessary
parking and circulation amenities.
51. All proposed driveways and aisle shall be designed in substantially the same
alignment as shown on the propose project site plan, subject to final design review
and approval by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Director of Public
Works.
52. Prior to the installation of the bicycle storage lockers, a color sample for the
locker exterior shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community
Development.
On-Site Walk and Pathway Conditions
53. The location and number of on-site walk and pathways shall generally comply with
the project plans. These walk and pathways shall be constructed pursuant to the
standards approved by the Director of Public Works.
54. Handicap access ramps shall be installed in accordance with the current standards
established by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
55. All sidewalks and pathways throughout the project site shall be designed to comply
with the minimum width standards set forth in the most recent Disabled
Accessibility Guidebook.
Site Lighting Conditions
56. The Lighting Plan approved by the City Council shall comply with the Non-
Residential Outdoor Light Ordinance pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.56.040. An
as-built lighting plan shall be submitted to the City prior to the final inspection and
shall include, but not limited to, the location, height, number of lights, wattage and
estimates of maximum illumination on site and spill/glare at properties lines for all
exterior circulation lighting, outdoor building lighting, walking and sidewalk lighting,
parking lot lighting, landscape ambiance lighting and sign lighting. The Lighting
Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community
Development prior to the issuance of any building permit.
F-55
57. An Illuminated mock-up of one of the proposed -10-foot high light poles shall be
placed prior to installation for review by the Director of Community Development.
58. There shall be a trial period of thirty (30) days from the installation of all the project
exterior lighting, including building and parking lot lighting, during which the lighting
shall be assessed for potential impacts to the surrounding properties. At the end
of the thirty (30) day period, the Director of Community Development may require
additional screening or reduction in the intensity or numbers of lights which are
determined to be excessively bright or otherwise create adverse impacts.
Furthermore, said lighting shall be reviewed as part of the one-year compliance
review described in Condition No. 3.
59. Parking and security lighting shall be kept to minimum safety standards and shall
conform to City requirements. Fixtures shall be shielded to emit light below 90
degrees so that only the project site is illuminated; there shall be no spillover onto
residential properties or halo into the night sky.
60. No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source or fixture, if located on a
building, is above the line of the eaves. If the light source or fixture is located on a
building with no eaves, or if located on a standard or pole, the light source or fixture
shall not be more than 10 feet above existing grade, adjacent to the building or
pole.
61. The parking lot light standards shall be limited to a maximum height of 10 feet, as
measured from adjacent finished grade.
62. The lighting bollards shall be limited to a maximum height of 42 inches, as
measured from adjacent finished grade.
63. The use of laser lights, strobe lights, flashing lights, or any similar lighting shall be
prohibited during all events.
Utility Conditions
64. Prior to issuance of the final inspection for the project grading, all new utilities
exclusively serving the project site shall be placed underground including, but not
limited to, cable, telephone, electrical, gas and water. All appropriate permits shall
be obtained for any such installation.
65. No above ground utility structure cabinets, poles, pipes, or valves shall be
constructed within the public rights-of-way without prior approval of the Director of
Public Works. If permitted, above ground utility structure cabinets, pipes, or valves
shall not impede on the pedestrian circulation flow and shall be painted a color to
F-56
the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The use of above
ground utility poles is prohibited.
66. The project shall comply with all recorded easements on the property.
Noise and Mechanical Equipment
67. If applicable, all new mechanical equipment, regardless of its location, shall be
housed in enclosures designed to attenuate noise to a level of 65 dBA CNEL at
the project site’s property lines.
68. Mechanical equipment shall be oriented away from any sensitive receptors such
as neighboring residences, and where applicable, must be installed with any
required acoustical shielding.
69. Use of amplified sound in excess of 65 dB at the property lines shall require a
special event permit pursuant to RPVMC Section§ 12.20.040.
70. The use of indoor amplified music shall be permitted between 11:00 a.m and 8:00
p.m. Music amplification or reproduction equipment shall not be operated in such
a manner that it is plainly audible from the nearest property line in any direction
from the community center building for classes or exercise programs . Use of
amplified music outdoors shall require a special event permit; not be allowed after
9 p.m.; speakers shall be oriented away from residential property and sound shall
not be in excess of 65 dB at the property lines.
71. All deliveries of goods and supplies; trash pick -up, including the use of parking
lot trash sweepers; and the operation of machinery or mechanical equipment
which emits noise levels in excess of 65 dBA, as measured from the closest
property line to the equipment, shall only be allowed between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and dusk, Monday through Sunday .
April 6, 2021 City Council-Approved Conditions
72. Prior to on-site grading or construction activities, the City shall place all Discovery
Room exhibits/displays into storage at Point Vicente Interpretive Center or at other
City facilities as deemed appropriate. After construction is complete, the
exhibits/displays that are not incorporated into the Discovery Room, shall remain
in storage.
73. Prior to on-site grading or construction activities, the City shall conduct a traffic
engineering study to collect baseline traffic data in the area of the park.
74. The City shall perform a parking demand analysis to assess alternatives for the
F-57
development of a parking management program as part of the annual compliance
review.
75. The access stairs between the upper tier of the project site and the adjacent
property in the area of the lower soccer fields shall be removed as part of the
park reconstruction.
F-58
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
(“Amendment No. 2”) by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES (“City”) and
JOHNSON FAVARO, a California corporation (“Consultant”) is effective as of
, 2020.
RECITALS
A. City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement for Contractual Services
dated December 18, 2018 (“Agreement”) whereby Consultant agreed to provide engineering
design services (the “Services”) for a Term of one year, for a Contract Sum of $538,460. The
Agreement provided for an additional one-year extension at the City’s discretion.
B. Due to the unforeseen necessity for Conditional Use Permit review and California
Environmental Quality Act review, the Services required additional tasks and would take longer
than anticipated. Therefore, on December 17, 2019, the City and Consultant entered into the
Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement to extend the Term of the Agreement by one year, to expire
on December 18, 2020, and increase the Contract Sum to $553,200.
C. Due to delays resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, additional time is required
to complete the Services. Therefore, the City and Consultant now desire to amend the Agreement
to extend the Term of the Agreement one additional year, to expire on December 18, 2021.
TERMS
1. Contract Changes. The Agreement is amended as provided herein. Deleted text is
indicated in strikethrough and added text in bold italics.
(a) Section 3.4, Term, is hereby amended as follows:
“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 December 18, 2021 December 18, 2020, except as otherwise
provided in the Schedule of Performance ( Exhibit D).”
(b) Exhibit “A”, Scope of Work, Section I(C)(17) is hereby amended as
follows:
“17. Consultant will submit any and all required documents necessary for the
project’s Conditional Use Permit/entitlements review and environmental review
(CEQA). In addition, Consultant will participate in internal meetings with City
Staff during the CUP/CEQA review phase as well as prepare presentations and
present at public hearings as needed. Consultant will also prepare minor revisions
to submitted materials as needed after both internal/departmental review and after
public hearings. CUP/CEQA Support: The Consultant will utilize the 100%
G-1
Design Development drawings for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applications. With regard to
design documents, anticipated are minor revisions to the completed 100% Design
Development drawings as a result of the CUP/CEQA process. This scope of work
does not include design changes which will require revision of the building
configuration, plan layout, building size, parking configuration or parking
quantity which would require revision of the completed 100% Design
Development drawings and additional work and coordination with MEP,
Lighting, Landscape, Structural and Civil Consultants. Changes that require
major revisions to the completed 100% Design Development drawings will
required a revision to the proposed Project Schedule.
1. Consultant will review and complete an application for the CUP.
The application will be filled out by Consultant to the best of the
Consultant’s knowledge.
2. Consultant will prepare and submit any and all required
documents necessary for the project’s CUP/entitlements review and
environmental review (CEQA).
3. Consultant will participate in internal meetings with City Staff
during the CUP/CEQA review phase as well as prepare presentations and
present at public hearings as needed. Anticipated at present are two (2)
Planning Commission meetings and one (1) City Council meeting.
4. Consultant will also prepare minor revisions to submitted
materials as needed after both internal/departmental review and after
public hearings.”
(c) Exhibit “D,” Schedule of Performance, is hereby replaced in its
entirety with the new Exhibit “D,” Schedule of Performance,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Continuing Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Amendment No. 2,
all provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. From and
after the date of this Amendment No. 2, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement,
it shall mean the Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2 to the
Agreement.
3. Affirmation of Agreement; Warranty Re Absence of Defaults. City and
Consultant each ratify and reaffirm each and every one of the respective rights and obligations
arising under the Agreement. Each party represents and warrants to the other that there have been
no written or oral modifications to the Agreement other than as provided herein. Each party
represents and warrants to the other that the Agreement is currently an effective, valid, and binding
obligation.
Consultant represents and warrants to City that, as of the date of this Amendment No. 2,
City is not in default of any material term of the Agreement and that there have been no events
G-2
that, with the passing of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a material default
under the Agreement.
City represents and warrants to Consultant that, as of the date of this Amendment No. 2,
Consultant is not in default of any material term of the Agreement and that there have been no
events that, with the passing of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a material
default under the Agreement.
4. Adequate Consideration. The parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that
they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the
obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment No. 2.
5. Authority. The persons executing this Amendment No. 2 on behalf of the parties
hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to
execute and deliver this Amendment No. 2 on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this
Amendment No. 2, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Amendment No. 2, and
(iv) the entering into this Amendment No. 2 does not violate any provision of any other agreement
to which said party is bound.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
G-3
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
____________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
_________________________________
William W. Wynder, City Attorney
CONSULTANT:
JOHNSON FAVARO, a California
corporation
By: ________________________________
Name: Jim Favaro
Title: Principal
By: ________________________________
Name: Steve Johnson
Title: Principal
Address: 5898 Blackwelder Street
Culver City, CA 90232
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.
G-4
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.
G-5
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.
G-6
EXHIBIT “D”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Consultant shall perform all Services timely in accordance with the following
schedule. Some portions of the Phases may be conducted concurrently.
Phase Duration
(Calendar Days) Start
Finish
A. Pre-Design 45 2.21.19 5.31.19
RPV Review and NTP 15 6.1.19 6.15.19
B. Schematic Design 45 6.3.19 7.25.19
RPV Review and NTP 15 7.25.19 9.16.19
C. Design Development 45 9.16.19 11.22.19
RPV Review and NTP 15 11.23.19 12.22.19
CUP/CEQA Review
Process 90 12.01.20 3.31.21
D. Construction Documents 90 04.01.21* 6.29.21
RPV Review and NTP 15 3.30.21 7.14.21
E. Permit 60** 7.15.21 9.12.21
F. City Council action to
approve project to go to bid 30** 9.13.21 10.12.21
G. Bid 45** 10.13.21 11.26.21
H.
City Council action to
award contract to successful
bidder
45** 11.27.21 01.10.22
I. Construction Duration 14 months** 1.11.22 3.11.23
* Anticipated start date dependent on CUP/CEQA review process, if either of the two processes
take longer than the 3 months anticipated, the Construction Documentation phase will be affected.
** Approximate time estimate, this is subject to change.
II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the
following dates.
Per Section I, above.
III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in
accordance with Section 3.2.
G-7
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Amendment No 1")by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ("City") and
JOHNSON FAVARO, a California corporation ("Consultant") is effective as of Pee.. 17
2019
RECITALS
A City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement for Contractual Services
dated December 18, 2018 ("Agreement") whereby Consultant agreed to provide engmeenng
design services (the "Services") for a Term of one year, for a Contract Sum of$538,460 The
Agreement provided for an additional one-year extension at the City's discretion
B Due to the unforeseen necessity for a Conditional Use Permit review and California
Environmental Quality Act review, the Services will require additional tasks and take longer than
anticipated Therefore, the City and Consultant now desire to amend the Agreement to extend the
Term of the Agreement by one year, to expire on December 18, 2020, and increase the Contract
Sum to $553,200
TERMS
1 Contract Changes The Agreement is amended as provided herein Deleted text is
indicated in stnkethreugh and added text in bold italics
a) Section 2 1, Contract Sum, is hereby amended as follows
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 Ave
Five Hundred
Fifty Three Thousand and Two Hundred Dollars ($553,200) (the "Contract
Sum"), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1 9 "
b) Section 3 4, Term, is hereby amended as follows
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 December 18, 2020 one years from the date hereof, except as
otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance ( Exhibit D") [The City may,
c) Exhibit "A," Scope of Services, is hereby replaced in its entirety with the
new Exhibit "A," Scope of Services, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference
H-1
d) Exhibit "C," Schedule of Compensation, is hereby replaced in its entirety
with the new Exhibit "C," Schedule of Compensation, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference
e) Exhibit "D," Schedule of Performance, is hereby replaced m its entirety
with the new Exhibit "D," Schedule of Performance, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference
2 Continuing Effect of Agreement Except as amended by this Amendment No 1,
all provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and m full force and effect From and
after the date of this Amendment No 1,whenever the term"Agreement"appears in the Agreement,
it shall mean the Agreement, as amended by this Amendment No 1 to the Agreement
3 Affirmation of Agreement; Warranty Re Absence of Defaults. City and
Consultant each ratify and reaffirm each and every one of the respective nghts and obligations
arising under the Agreement Each party represents and warrants to the other that there have been
no written or oral modifications to the Agreement other than as provided herein Each party
represents and warrants to the other that the Agreement is currently an effective,valid,and binding
obligation
Consultant represents and warrants to City that, as of the date of this Amendment No 1,
City is not m default of any matenal term of the Agreement and that there have been no events
that, with the passing of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a matenal default
under the Agreement
City represents and warrants to Consultant that, as of the date of this Amendment No 1,
Consultant is not in default of any material term of the Agreement and that there have been no
events that, with the passing of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a material
default under the Agreement
4 Adequate Consideration. The parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that
they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the
obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment No 1
5 Authority The persons executing this Amendment No 1 on behalf of the parties
hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to
execute and deliver this Amendment No 1 on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this
Amendment No 1, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Amendment No 1, and
iv)the entenng into this Amendment No 1 does not violate any provision of any other agreement
to which said party is bound
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
01203 0006/616940 1 2-H-2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date
and year first-above wntten
CITY
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
municipal corporation
Li
i, Cruikshank, Mayor
Anil-
AM lowTTA
411411
Eminiar '!r, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
4
William W Wynd S ity Attorney
CONSULTANT
JOHNSON FAVARO, a California
Corporation
By 1%- 1,
1/
r/ .
fril"I'
m ,`avaropPnn•...al
s.1
By
ame Y'-_
i/
ve ', '.._.Jv4 ot +
Princ ..
Address 5898 Blac . - •er Street
r
Culver City, CA 90232
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 0006/616940 1 3-H-3
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate venfies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached,and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, =,t)
SP
On(J 1712ta20,29.I+9 before me,$t.t(r, kirkv4t)I,personally appeared SIM F-Peat iCQproved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s whose namesO is/ape subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/sbeLthey executed the same in his/herktieir authorized capacity(iesj, and that by
hls/hef,'heir•signature(1) on the instrument the person(1), or the entity upon behalf of which the person() 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 myhand and official seal s'= SHEIUTRIVEDI
I I Loss,4
AngNotary
eles County
California
J r Commission 0 229794Signaturess'my Comm Expires N+Y IS 2023
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 l
CORPORATE OFFICER I(LO.'w mutt- vQ_(o,v Tte-GIGr
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL NUMBER OF PAGES
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR t I(1 ,>0
OTHER N b V G DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING NU N
NAME OF PERSON(S)OR ENTITY(IES)) SIGNER(S)OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
01203 0006/616940 1 H-4
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached,and not the truthfulness,accuracy or validity of that document
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGGES1i7/&o2'
24,20
On X)19 ,394 SC19beforeme,14 1V - I4j5personally appeared h*ONN $11-t, ,proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(4 whose names() is/aFe subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/site eney executed the same in his/I1Citt}ieir authonzed capacity(ies), and that by
his/11444heir signature(i) on the instrument the person(s1}, or the entity upon behalf of which the person() 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 myhand and official seal
sNE1LATltiv[a
rr Notary Public Ca1HorMa
e l 4. Los Anieles County IF
Signature SMy Coram IEsp«ir esAue tS• 2o21
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 Co 071.4C-1-
CORPORATE OFFICER JpJ St c 4wA.Y" (rdU,Le o^"k )
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED 3
GENERAL NUMBER OF PAGES
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR 11(1- 1 ,)-02-0
OTHER DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING C`'0 6) L
NAME OF PERSON(S)OR ENTITY(IES)) SIGNER(S)OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
S.tIF
01203 0006/616940 1 H-5
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Consultant will perform engineering design services for the Ladera Linda Community
Park Project (the Services) The project's scope is divided into two phases PHASE 1
The first phase consists of refining and developing the existing approved conceptual Master
Plan to a 30%completion level This phase will be presented to the City Council for review
and approval PHASE 2 The second phase consists of the development of a fully-
completed construction design and construction-ready documents for this project
Consultant will coordinate work with the subconsultants to ensure that is completed in a
timely and professional manner, and shall be solely responsible for the work of
subconsultants
PHASE 1
A. PRE-DESIGN. The work shall be performed by Consultant.
1 In cooperation with the City the Consultant shall produce existing
conditions documentation based on City provided site survey, geotechnical
investigative report, and other documents and date as required by the City's
Contract Officer
2 Consultant shall create documentation of the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
dated March 20, 2018 (Master Plan) suitable for a basis of design, and
presentation(s) to the City, community stakeholders and other as required by
the City's Contract Officer
3 Consultant shall engage in a community outreach effort (including (3)
meetings with neighbonng HOAs and others as required by the City's Contract
Officer) to confirm those features of the park master plan to remain and those
which are to be revised
4 Consultant shall produce models and drawings suitable for incorporation
into subsequent design and document sets, as well as presentation of same to
City and community groups
B. SCHEMATIC DESIGN. The work shall be performed by Consultant, in
conjunction with subconsultants MGAC, KPFF, Englekirk Institutional,
NOVUS, KSA, and Technical Resources Consultants.
1 In cooperation with the City, the Consultant shall prepare documents
illustrating the scale and relationship of project components (Schematic Design
Documents) of the Project The documents shall include, but not be limited to
a site plan, enlarged site plans, floor plans, elevations, site sections, site
elevations, outline specifications and other documents necessary and as
required to illustrate the proposed project scope and concept The Consultant
shall incorporate into the Schematic Documents the proposed program and
01203 0006/616940 1 H-6
functional requirements as approved by the City,established in the Master Plan,
as well as revisions in the pre-design phase
2 The Schematic Design documents shall include preliminary selections of
major building systems, and construction matenals shall be noted on the
drawings or descnbed in wntmg
3 Consultant shall meet with the City's Contract Officer at intervals as
necessary to develop the design and review progress drawings and other
documents which depict schematic status of the Project design
4 Community/stakeholder workshops as required by the City's Contract
Officer are proposed during this phase in order to update Project design
progress and solicit comment
5 Consultant shall target LEED Certified Equivalent per the U S Green
Building Council (USGBC) rating system and provide LEED checklists and
reports indicating probable design credits for the Project and assignment of
subconsultant responsibility for ensuring each measure is properly applied to
the Project design
6 Consultant shall coordinate as required with City's staff in order to confirm
compliance with City standards and to develop furniture and equipment plans
for the Project design that are consistent with City requirements and standards
7 Consultant shall prepare a preliminary site development package to include
civil plans illustrating demolition, grading and paving, hydrology calculations
and drainage (to include potential detention basins and/or bio-swales) and all
utility services
8 Consultant has the sole responsibility for preparing documentation of the
preliminary design for review and comment by all appropnate agencies and
utility providers, including but not limited to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
and others as required Consultant is not responsible for the actions, non-
actions, change of action by these agencies and utility providers after all efforts
are made by Consultant to solicit review and to incorporate all review
comments All work associated with change-of-action based on previous
direction by the agencies identified will be considered Additional Services
9 Consultant shall prepare an Estimated Project Construction Cost Estimate
in a format acceptable to the City at 100%completion of Schematic Design, the
purpose of which is to show the probable construction cost in relation to the
City's Construction Budget If the Consultant perceives site considerations or
City project requirements which render the project cost prohibitive, the
Consultant shall disclose such conditions in wnting to the City immediately
10 Consultant shall make presentations of the Schematic Design documents
and 100% Schematic Design Cost Estimates to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
01203 0006/616940 1 H-7
staff, City Council, Commissions and others as required in order to update
design progress,solicit comment,and obtam approval for the Schematic Design
project scope and budget
11 Consultant shall make presentations of the 100% Schematic Design Cost
Estimates to the City The City shall prepare at City's discretion and at its own
expense the independent third party estimates of probable construction costs
All cost estimates will be reconciled with an City/ Project Management Cost
Estimate developed by an independent third party cost estimator The
Consultant shall attend one (1) cost reconciliation meeting with the third-party
cost estimator for the purpose of reconciling the 100% Schematic Design
Estimated Project Construction Costs
12 City's Contract Officer and Consultant shall meet to review the provisional
Schematic Design Documents and Cost Estimates in order to reach agreement
on any City-authonzed adjustment to the approved Project schedule or
construction budget and identify any necessary clanfications of the provisional
Schematic Design Documents
13 Consultant shall make all City-requested changes, additions, deletions, and
corrections m the Schematic Design Documents which may result from the
City's or any constructability review, at no additional cost to the City, so long
as they are not in conflict with the requirements of the public agencies havmg
jurisdiction or pnor approval, or inconsistent with earlier City direction or
Consultant's professional judgment If such changes are inconsistent with pnor
City direction, Consultant shall make such alterations and be compensated
therefore pursuant to the Additional Services provision of this Agreement
14 Unless City agrees otherwise in wnting, the Consultant shall revise
respective provisional Schematic Design documents and Cost Estimates to
reflect adjustments and clarifications agreed upon in the review meeting and
resubmit Schematic Design documents and Cost Estimates to City Once
approved, the revised Schematic Design documents shall become the final
Schematic Design Documents
15 If the City's Contract Officer has not authorized m wasting a revision to the
project scope and the Estimated Project Construction Cost based on Schematic
Design documents exceeds the City's Construction Budget by more than ten
percent (10%), the City may request the Consultant to amend, at the
Consultant's sole cost and expense, the Schematic Design Documents in order
to meet the City's Construction Budget
PHASE 2
C. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT. The work shall be performed by the Consultant,
in conjunction with subconsultants MGAC, KPFF, Englekirk Institutional,
NOVUS,Darkhorse Lighworks, KSA, and Technical Resources Consultants
01203 0006/616940 1 H-8
1 Upon written approval by the City's Contract Officer of the Schematic
Design documents and the 100% Schematic Design Estimated Project
Construction Cost, the Consultant shall prepare Design Development
documents consisting of, but not limited to, site plans, enlarged site plans,
building floor plans, enlarged floor plans, site sections, building sections,
building elevations, typical construction details, finish schedules indicating
finish selection, mtenor elevations, outline specifications and other drawings
and documents sufficient to fix and descnbe the scope, relationship, size,
appearance and character of the project components
2 Design Development documents shall include Mechanical, Electncal, and
Plumbing system designs and equipment layouts including single line diagrams
and an energy analysis report
3 Consultant shall provide mtenor and extenor lighting design services to
include lighting design plans and schedules and photometric calculations as
required for permit and to confirm minimum or maximum light levels for site
development and building areas, including parking lots, path of travel and
emergency egress
4 Consultant shall update the LEED checklists and report identifying
probable design credits for the Project and prepare as needed concept
cost/benefit analysis of individual design elements for review and consideration
by the City
5 Consultant shall finalize storm water and design drainage plans and
incorporate site features in conformance with the guidelines of the Governing
Agency and as required to comply with City regulations
6 Consultant shall take the lead role in applying for and obtaining required
approvals from all federal, state, regional or local agencies concerned with the
Project
7 Consultant shall interpret all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules,
and regulations with respect to access, including those of the Amencans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Consultant shall identify all non-compliant
construction within the Project scope area and complete plans and
specifications for site and building improvements within the Project scope area
as required to correct or remove non-compliant construction as required for
permit, including, but not limited to path of travel, curb ramps and accessible
parking
8 Consultant shall meet with the City at intervals as necessary to develop the
design and to review progress drawings and other documents that depict the
Design Development status of the Project
01203 0006/616940 1 H-9
9 Consultant shall establish an updated Estimated Project Construction Costs
at 100% completion of Design Development documents containing detail
consistent with the Design Development documents
10 Community/stakeholder workshops are proposed as required by the City's
Contract Officer during this phase in order to update Project design progress
and solicit comment
11 Consultant shall make presentations of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
staff, City Council, Commissions,and others as required by the City's Contract
Officer, to update design progress, solicit comment, and obtain approval for the
Design Development project scope and budget
12 Design Development documents and 100% Design Development Cost
Estimates to the City All cost estimates will be reconciled with an City/Project
Management Cost Estimate developed by an independent third party cost
estimator The City shall prepare at City's discretion and at its own expense the
independent third party estimates of probable construction costs The
Consultant shall attend one (1) cost reconciliation meeting with the third-party
cost estimator for the purpose of reconciling the 100% Design Development
Estimated Project Construction Costs
13 The City and the Consultant shall meet to review the provisional Design
Development Documents and Cost Estimates in order to reach agreement on
any City-authorized adjustment to the approved Project schedule or
construction budget and identify any necessary clanfications of the provisional
Design Development Documents and/or the 100% Design Development Cost
Estimates
14 Consultant shall make all City-requested changes, additions, deletions, and
corrections m the Design Development documents which may result from any
constructability review, at no additional cost to the City, so long as they are not
in conflict with the requirements of the public agencies having junsdiction or
pnor approval, or inconsistent with earlier City direction or Consultant's
professional judgment If such changes are inconsistent with pnor City
direction, Consultant shall make such alterations and be compensated therefore
pursuant to the Additional Services provision of this Agreement
15 Unless the City agrees otherwise in writing, the Consultant shall revise
provisional Design Development documents and Cost Estimates to reflect
adjustments and clanfications agreed upon in the review meeting and resubmit
Design Development documents and Cost Estimates to the City Once
approved, the revised Design Development documents shall become the final
Design Development Documents
16 If the City has not authorized in wnting a revision to the project scope and
Estimated Project Construction Costs based on Design Development
01203 0006/616940 1 H-10
documents exceeds the City's Construction Budget by more than ten percent
10%), the City may request the Consultant to amend, at the Consultant's sole
cost and expense, the Design Development Documents in order to meet the
City's Construction Budget
17 Consultant will submit any and all required documents necessary for the
project's Conditional Use Permit/entitlements review and environmental
review (CEQA) In addition, Consultant will participate in internal meetings
with City Staff during the CUP/CEQA review phase as well as prepare
presentations and present at public heanngs as needed Consultant will also
prepare minor revisions to submitted matenals as needed after both
internal/departmental review and after public heanngs
D. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. The work shall be performed by
Consultant, in conjunction with subconsultants MGAC, KPFF, Englekirk
Institutional,NOVUS,Darkhorse Lightworks,KSA,and Technical Resources
Consultants.
1 Based on approved Design Development Documents and the approved
updated project Construction Budget,the Consultant shall prepare,for approval
by City, Construction Documents consisting of drawings and other documents
setting forth m detail the requirements for construction of the Project The
Consultant shall prepare complete drawings and specifications as are necessary
for developing complete bids and for properly executing the Project work
Drawings and specifications shall set forth in detail all of the following 1) the
Project construction work to be done, 2) the matenals, workmanship, finishes,
and equipment required for the Project, and 3) the utility service connection
equipment and site work
2 Consultant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)
which will include Best Management Practices (BMP's) that outline standard
practices that can be implemented to decrease the discharge of pollutants into
storm drains during construction operation on the site
3 Consultant shall submit a written Estimated Project Construction Cost for
the project based on the Construction Document Phase Documents at 90%
completion Construction Document Phase Documents shall be consistent with
the Project Construction Budget and if not in conformance shall be revised until
approved in writing by the City
4 All cost estimates will be reconciled with an City/Project Management Cost
Estimate developed by an independent third-party cost estimator The City shall
prepare at City's discretion and at its own expense the independent third-party
estimate of probable construction costs The Consultant shall attend one(1)cost
reconciliation meeting at each Construction Document milestone with the
City's third-party cost estimator for the purpose of reconciling the 90%
Construction Document Estimated Project Construction Cost
01203 0006/616940 1 H-11
5 The City's Contract Officer and the Consultant shall meet to review the
provisional 100% Construction Documents and Cost Estimate to reach
agreement on any City-authorized adjustment to the approved Project schedule
or construction budget and identify any necessary clanfications of the
provisional Construction Documents and Cost Estimates
6 The parties agree that the Consultant, and not the City,possess the requisite
expertise to determine the constructability of the Construction Documents
However, the City reserves the nght to conduct one or more constructability
review processes with the Construction Documents, and to hire an independent
architect or other consultant to perform such reviews Any such independent
constructability reviews shall be at the City's expense
7 Consultant shall make all City-requested changes, additions, deletions, and
corrections m the Construction Documents which may result from any
constructability review, at no additional cost to the City, so long as they are not
in conflict with the requirements of the public agencies having jurisdiction or
pnor approval, or inconsistent with earlier City direction or with Consultant's
professional judgment If such changes are inconsistent with pnor City
direction, Consultant shall make such alterations and be compensated therefore
pursuant to the Additional Services provision of this Agreement
8 Unless the City agrees otherwise in wnting, the Consultant shall revise
provisional Construction Documents and Cost Estimates to reflect adjustments
and clarifications agreed upon m the review meeting and resubmit Construction
Documents and Cost Estimates to the City Once approved, the revised
Construction Documents shall become the final 100% Construction
Documents
9 The Consultant shall provide two (2) sets full size(30"x 42") and half size
15" x 21") hard copies at 50% Construction Documents for City review and
input Changes directed by City which are inconsistent with pnor City direction
shall be made by the Consultant and compensated as Additional Services The
scope of and compensation for such changes shall be mutually agreed upon by
the Consultant and City before such changes are initiated
10 Revise the 50%Construction Documents and submit another two (2) set of
documents at 90%Construction Documents for City review and input Changes
directed by City which are inconsistent with prior City direction shall be made
by the Consultant and compensated as Additional Services The scope of and
compensation for such changes shall be mutually agreed upon by the Consultant
and City before such changes are initiated
11 Consultant shall submit two (2) sets of 90% Construction Documents for
submittal to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval
01203 0006/616940 1 H-12
12 Complete corrections on the 100% Construction Documents as required by
the various City departments to obtain final approval of the Construction
Documents for bidding purposes
13 Provide a final Cost Estimate and Project Schedule to confirm the project is
on target
14 Submit two (2) sets of approved 100% Construction Documents and
Specifications for City's records and electronic copies on a CD along with a
flash drive
E. PERMIT.The work shall be performed by the Consultant,in conjunction with
subconsultants KPFF, Englekirk Institutional,NOVUS, and KSA
1 The Construction Documents and Specifications must be m such form as
will enable the Consultant and City to secure the required permits and approvals
for all federal, state, regional or local agencies concerned with the Project
F BIDDING. The work shall be performed by Consultant, in conjunction with
subconsultants KPFF, Englekirk Institutional,NOVUS, and KSA.
1 Assist in the submittal of the Bid Drawings (100% Construction
Documents) and Specifications to the City's Project Manager
2 Respond to all Requests for Information (RFIs) workmg with the City's
Project Manager
3 Assist the City's Project Manager m reviewing and evaluating the bids and
related documents for contract award to the lowest responsive and responsible
bidder
II Exclusions
See Exhibit"A-1"
III. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible work
products to the City
1 Models and drawings
2 Schematic Design Documents
3 Preliminary site development package
4 Estimated Project Construction Cost Estimates
5 Presentation files
6 Design Development documents
7 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
8 Construction Documents
01203 0006/616940 1 H-13
IV. In addition to the requirements of Section 6 2, dunng performance of the Services,
Consultant will keep the City appraised of the status of performance by delivenng the
following status reports
NOT APPLICABLE
V. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be revised by
the Consultant without additional charge to the City until found satisfactory and accepted
by City
VI Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services
A Jim Favaro, Steve Johnson, Bnan Davis and Kathy Williams
B KSA Kathenne Spitz, Jake Patton
C. KPFF Tom Gsell
D MGAC Rick Lloyd
E. Englekirk Institutional , Tom Sabol and Diana Nish,
F NOVUS Michael Leung
G Darkhorse Lightworks TRC Dawn Hollingsworth
01203 0006/616940 1 H-14
EXHIBIT "C"
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I.Consultant and subconsultants shall perform the following tasks at the following
rates
Discipline/Firm Predesign Schematic Design Construction Permit Bid Sub-
design Development Documents Budget
Architecture/ 45,000 45,000 74,740 125,000 $5,000 $3,500 $298,240
Johnson Favaro
Cost Planning/ 0 3,000 6,000 4,500 0 0 $13,500
MGAC
Civil Engineering/ 0 19,360 20,240 35,200 $10,200 $3,000 $88,000
KPFF
Structural 0 2,750 6,300 24,000 500 $500 $34,050
Engineering/
Englekirk
MEP,FLS/Novus 0 10,000 13,000 22,500 $3,000 $1,500 $50,000
Lighting/0 0 4,500 7,500 0 0 $12,000
Darkhorse Lighting
Landscape 0 10,520 9,800 18,000 590 $500 $39,410
Architecture/KSA
Specifications/TRC 0 0 5,000 2,000 $1,000 0 8,000
Reimbursable 10,000
Expenses*
TOTALS 45,000 90,630 139,580 238,700 $20,290 $9,000 $553,200
Reimbursable expenses shall include reasonable out of pocket expenses that are incurred and paid
by Consultant and subconsultants in furtherance of this Agreement Reimbursable
expenses shall include
Printing and reproduction costs
Project-related mileage
Shipping, overnight mail, postage, messenger and other handling of drawings
and documents
Presentation models
Fees paid to third parties for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction
over the Project
01203 0006/616940 1 H-15
Additional consultants not included in this Agreement, subject to the City's
Contract Officer's prior written approval
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 21, 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 descnbing 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,matenals,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 billing rates for Consultant's and subconsultants' personnel are attached as
Exhibit C-1.
01203 0006/616940 1 H-16
EXHIBIT "D"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I.Consultant shall perform all Services timely in accordance with the following
schedule. Some portions of the Phases may be conducted concurrently.
Phase
Duration
Start Finish
Calendar Days)
A. Pre-Design 45 2 21 19 5 31 19
RPV Review and NTP 15 6 1 19 6 15 19
B. Schematic Design 45 6 3 19 7 25 19
RPV Review and NTP 15 7 25 19 9 16 19
C. Design Development 45 9 16 19 11 22 19
RPV Review and NTP 15 11 23 19 12 22 19
CUP/CEQA Review
180 12 18 19 6 15 20
Process
D Construction Documents 180 12 22 19 6 15 20
RPV Review and NTP 110 3 15 20 7 1 20
E Permit 45 7 1 20 8 15 20
F Bid 15 8 15 20 11 1 20
II Consultant shall dehver the following tangible work products to the City by the
following dates.
Per Section I, above
III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in
accordance with Section 3.2.
01203 0006/616940 1 H-17
CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
By and Between
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
and
JOHNSON FAVARO
01203.0006/523512 2 1 A-1 I-1
AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND
JOHNSON FAVARO
THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (herein "Agreement") is made and
entered into this 18 day of December, 2018 by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a
California municipal corporation ("City") and Johnson Favaro, 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 professional standards" shall mean those
01203.0006/523512.2
A-2 I-2
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. Contractor shall post job site notices, as prescribed by
regulation.
b) Prevailing Wages. Contractor shall pay prevailing wages to the extent
required by Labor Code Section 1771. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the
prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any
interested party on request. By initiating any work under this Agreement, Contractor
acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) determination of
the prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Contractor shall post a copy of the same at each job
site where work is performed under this Agreement.
c) Penalty for Failure to Pay Prevailing Wages. Contractor shall comply with
and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment
of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The
Contractor shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar
01203.0006/523512.2 2
A-3 I-3
day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the
DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to
this Agreement by Contractor or by any subcontractor.
d) Payroll Records. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the
provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Contractor and each subcontractor to:
keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of 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. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions
of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations Title 8,
Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects.
Contractor shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all
apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Contractor shall
provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program.
Within sixty (60) days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Contractor and each of
its subcontractors shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice
hours performed under this Agreement.
0 Eight-Hour Work Day. Contractor acknowledges that eight (8)hours labor
constitutes a legal day's work. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section
1810.
g) Penalties for Excess Hours. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by
the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess
hours. The Contractor shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each
worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Contractor or by any
subcontractor for each calendar day during 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 Contractor in excess of
eight (8) hours per day, and forty (40) hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public
work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than one
and one-half(11/2)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, Contractor certifies as follows:
I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require
every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of
this contract."
01203.0006/523512.2 3
A-4 I-4
A,,1
Contractor's Authorized Initials a..
i) Contractor's Responsibility for Su. . tractors. For every subcontractor
who will perform work under this Agreement, Contractor shall be responsible for such
subcontractor's compliance with Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720)
of the California Labor Code, and shall make such compliance a requirement in any contract with
any subcontractor for work under this Agreement. Contractor shall be required to take all actions
necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor's compliance,
including without limitation, conducting a review of the certified payroll records of the
subcontractor on a periodic basis or upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to
pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Contractor shall diligently take
corrective action to halt or rectify any such failure by any subcontractor.
1.5 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.
01203.0006/523512.2 4
A-5 I-5
Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective
obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all
instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry
out the purposes of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible
for the service of the other.
1.9 Additional Services.
City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without
invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services
or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be
undertaken unless a written order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant,
incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the extra
work, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the
written approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to ten percent (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 contractors.
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 Five Hundred Thirty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Sixty
Dollars ($538,460) (the "Contract Sum"), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant
to Section 1.9.
2.2 Method of Compensation.
01203.0006/523512.2 5
A-6 I-6
The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon completion; (ii)
payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of the services, less
contract retention; (iii) payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant's rates as
specified in the Schedule of Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the
performance of sub tasks, (b) contract retention is maintained, and (c) the Contract Sum is not
exceeded; or(iv) such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation.
2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.
Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for
reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in
advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.5,
and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the
attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City.
Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If
Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant
shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings.
2. 4 Invoices.
Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice for all work performed
and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by City's Director of
Finance. By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying
compliance with all provisions of the Agreement. The invoice shall 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
01203.0006/523512.2 6
A-7 I-7
3.1 Time of Essence.
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
3.2 Schedule of Performance.
Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a
written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in
the "Schedule of Performance" attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this
reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time period(s) specified in the
Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer but not exceeding
one hundred eighty(180) days cumulatively.
3. 3 Force Maieure.
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 years
from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit
D"). [The City may, in its sole discretion, extend the Term for one additional one-year terms.]
ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK
4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant.
The following principals of Consultant ("Principals") are hereby designated as being the
principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the
work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:
Jim Favaro Principal
Name)Title)
01203.0006/523512.2 7
A-8 I-8
It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the
foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.
Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for
directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the
services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be
under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the
foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced
by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize
only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall make
every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant's staff and
subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement.
Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant's staff and subcontractors, if any,
assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any such
performance.
4.2 Status of Consultant.
Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation,
debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless
such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in
writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or
any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers,
employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant's officers, employees or
agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may
otherwise accrue to City's employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may
have to any such rights.
4.3 Contract Officer.
The Contract Officer shall be Elias Sassoon, Director of Public Works, and Ron Dragoo,
Principal/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
01203.0006/523512.2 8
A-9 I-9
time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees
of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of
Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any joint enterprise
with Consultant.
4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.
The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and
employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore,
Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services
required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. In addition, neither this
Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or
encumbered voluntarily or by operation of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise,
without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the
transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty five percent
25%) of the present ownership and/or control of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on
a cumulative basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy
proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No approved transfer shall release the Consultant or
any surety of Consultant of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City.
ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
5.1 Insurance Coverages.
Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of
any services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own
expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts
described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
a) General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in
an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily
injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that
has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO "insured contract" language
will not be accepted.
b) Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile
insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury
and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with
Services to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-
owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each
accident.
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
01203.0006/523512.2 9
A-10 I-10
Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than
three(3)years after completion of the services required by this Agreement.
d) Workers' compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers'
Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer's Liability Insurance (with limits of at
least$1,000, 000).
e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds
under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated
herein.
f) Additional 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
01203.0006/523512 2 10
A-11 I-11
assigned policyholders' Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI(or larger)
in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by
the City's Risk Manager.
f) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured
pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or
appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow
Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to
waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery
against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of
its subconsultants.
g) Enforcement of contract provisions (non-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.
1) 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.
01203.0006/523512.2 11
A-12 I-12
m) Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants,
subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in
the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements
required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes
all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements
of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants,
subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
n) Agency's right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any
time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by
giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change
results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate
Consultant's compensation.
o) Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to
and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated,
lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these
specifications unless approved by City.
p) Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant's performance
under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required
liability policies.
q) Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be
necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.
5.3 Indemnification.
To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") against, and will
hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial,
administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs,
penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened(herein"claims
or liabilities") that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in
connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein
of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or
entity for which Consultant is legally liable ("indemnitors"), or arising from Consultant's or
indemnitors' reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant's or indemnitors'
negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this
Agreement, and in connection therewith:
a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any
of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and
attorneys' fees incurred in connection therewith;
01203.0006/523512 2 12
A-13 I-13
b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its
officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection
with the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of
Consultant hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and
employees harmless therefrom;
c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to
any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims
arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform the work,
operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers,
agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or
employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys'
fees.
Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if
it fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and
failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall not be a waiver hereof. This
indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or
omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional
services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring
as a result of City's sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent
permitted by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City's negligence,
except that design professionals' indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities
arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The
indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive
termination of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 6. RECORDS,REPORTS,AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION
6.1 Records.
Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of
accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the
disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the "books and records"), as
shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract
Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete
and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all
times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make
records and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three
3) years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such
records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant's business,
custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by
Consultant's successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall fully
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.
01203.0006/523512.2 13
A-14 I-14
6.2 Reports.
Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports
concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer
shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost of
work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant agrees
that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or
will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein or, if
Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant shall
promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the
estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design
services,the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed.
6.3 Ownership of Documents.
All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes,
computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the "documents and materials")
prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this
Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the
Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim
for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full
rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use,
reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted
documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the City's sole risk
and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant's guarantee and warranties shall not extend to
such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use.
Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein. All subcontractors shall
provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event
Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages
resulting therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents and materials that may
qualify as "works made for hire" as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such documents and materials
are hereby deemed"works made for hire"for the City.
6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information.
a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in
performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the
public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such
information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written
authorization from the Contract Officer.
b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not,
without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City
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.
01203.0006/523512 2 14
A-15 I-15
c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of
Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City
shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and
fees, including attorney's fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant's conduct.
d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice
of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work
performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be
present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully
with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests
provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean
the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION
7.1 California Law.
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to
performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions
concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be
instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or any other
appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal
jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District
Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California.
7.2 Disputes; Default.
In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall
not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed
after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the
reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the
default. This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not
reduced, if circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the
City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the
invoices. In the alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the
outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default,the City
may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part
of the City to give notice of the Consultant's default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of
the City's legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.
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
01203.0006/523512.2 15
A-16 I-16
dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or
damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by
reason of Consultant's acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant's
obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party,the amount
or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear
to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for
interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of
City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of
the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.
7.4 Waiver.
Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this
Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any
party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other
provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement.
Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of
the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by
a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a
waiver. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of
any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.
Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this
Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party
of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or
different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the
other party.
7.6 Legal Action.
In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in
equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel
specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain
any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary
provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections
905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.
7.7 Liquidated Damages.
Since the determination of actual damages for any delay in performance of this
Agreement would be extremely difficult or impractical to determine in the event of a breach of
this Agreement, the Contractor and its sureties shall be liable for and shall pay to the City the
sum of zero ($0) 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.
01203.0006/523512.2 16
A-17 I-17
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 Consultant,
except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be
such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. In addition, the Consultant
reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon sixty (60)
days' written notice to City, except that where termination is due to the fault of the City, the
period of notice may be such shorter time as the Consultant may determine. Upon receipt of any
notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as
may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Except where the Consultant has initiated
termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to the
effective date of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer
thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the
Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7. 3. In the event the Consultant has initiated
termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the
work product actually produced hereunder. In the event of termination without cause pursuant to
this Section, the terminating party need not provide the non-terminating party with the
opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.
7.9 Termination for Default of Consultant.
If termination is due to the failure of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this
Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work
and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable
to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the
compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate
such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off
or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.
7.10 Attorneys' Fees.
If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any
action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such
action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or
equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's
fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other
reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other
necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be
deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or
not such action is prosecuted to judgment.
ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION
8.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees.
01203.0006/523512.2 17
A-18 I-18
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
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.
01203.0006/523512.2 18
A-19 I-19
Any notice, demand,request, document, consent, approval, or communication either party
desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either
served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager
and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of Rancho
Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 and in the case of
the Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of this
Agreement. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of
address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in
seventy-two (72)hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.
9.2 Interpretation.
The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the
language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of
this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.
9.3 Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.
9.4 Integration; Amendment.
This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive
expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements
between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels
any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between
the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement.No amendment to or modification
of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by
the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be
waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.
9.5 Severability.
In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or
sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid
judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall
not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this
Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent
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
01203.0006/523512.2 19
A-20 I-20
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, considerati. , or other thing of value will render
this Agreement void and of no force or effect.
4IA
Consultant's Authorized Initials elltv
9.7 Corporate Authority. if
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]
01203.0006/523512.2 20
A-21 I-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 corpor 'on
Mayor
ATillk. :
lilt_kilb
WAgifk.
Em711Pb!1Mt -•, ity Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE &WYNDER, LLP
1)Vii
William VVI City Attorney
CONSULTANT:
JOHNSON FAVARO
By:
Name: a
Title: Pr'• ,,IW
4110PBy: ./
Nam `_ ;Jo .on
Title: Princip'
Address:
5898 Blackwelder Street
Culver City, CA 90232
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.
01203.0006/523512 2 21
A-22 I-22
ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Title of Document: SC-0 (t 6 Sigv14-17—d
Date of Document: 12 I I J
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California
o S OrN6 1
ss.
County of
On 12 \a% 1 ) 13. before me, ,9tn i A- TVG Notary Public,
personally appeared 3-1 %-n p fw Pr R.
c• 7tz rL Uh n1501J
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) iefare
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that 11LT-0e/they executed the same in
n.i&h r/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hiefher/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.is •- commission•2120047
t•-• Notary Public•California
Los Angeles County
Signature 2> 1M„ My Comm.Ex iter Au 15.2010'
FOR NOTARY STAMP
SIMLA TAIVEDI
Commission al 2120047
Notary Public-California ztosAngsk:County1_\:,1-7),,152019
I-23
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached,and not the truthfulness,accuracy or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
grtyt 50101Sva
On PE'C'
1 - $2018 before me,Sutk; Tilowwis, personally appeared 11 wn rPWA4RQ , proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose names(s)4s/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he4lte/they executed the same in hisfher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
hiker/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. riall"1"111"
11111946P-WITNESS my hand and official seal. syoliry f
ON-California
1'nl09 Atq li Couay
Signature: Comm, 15 2019
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 OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL NUMBER OF PAGES
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
NAME OF PERSON(S)OR ENTITY(IES)) SIGNER(S)OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
01203.0006/523512.2
A-23 I-24
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached,and not the truthfulness,accuracy or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF,LOS,ANGELES,
On 2018 befOre•nfe, personally appeated'' prover!'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 co
rr 44,
WITNESS y I o
iM; _`
t Ylncnv tileVM lfiJ
1 '`
Signature: _ r 4-__ aJ pnrt;'
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 OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL NUMBER OF PAGES
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
NAME OF PERSON(S)OR ENTITY(IES)) SIGNER(S)OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
01203.0006/523512.2
A-24 I-25
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Consultant will perform engineering design services for the Ladera Linda Community
Park Project (the Services). The project's scope is divided into two phases: PHASE 1:
The first phase consists of refining and developing the existing approved conceptual
Master Plan to a 30% completion level. This phase will be presented to the City Council
for review and approval. PHASE 2: The second phase consists of the development of a
fully-completed construction design and construction-ready documents for this project.
Consultant will coordinate work with the subconsultants to ensure that is completed in a
timely and professional manner, and shall be solely responsible for the work of
subconsultants.
PHASE 1
A. PRE-DESIGN. The work shall be performed by Consultant.
1. In cooperation with the City the Consultant shall produce existing
conditions documentation based on City provided site survey, geotechnical
investigative report, and other documents and date as required by the City's
Contract Officer.
2. Consultant shall create documentation of the Ladera Linda Park Master
Plan dated March 20, 2018 (Master Plan) suitable for a basis of design, and
presentation(s) to the City, community stakeholders and other as required by
the City's Contract Officer.
3. Consultant shall engage in a community outreach effort (including (3)
meetings with neighboring HOAs and others as required by the City's
Contract Officer) to confirm those features of the park master plan to remain
and those which are to be revised.
4. Consultant shall produce models and drawings suitable for incorporation
into subsequent design and document sets, as well as presentation of same to
City and community groups.
B. SCHEMATIC DESIGN. The work shall be performed by Consultant, in
conjunction with subconsultants MGAC, KPFF, Englekirk Institutional,
NOVUS,KSA,and Technical Resources Consultants.
1. In cooperation with the City, the Consultant shall prepare documents
illustrating the scale and relationship of project components (Schematic
Design Documents) of the Project. The documents shall include, but not be
limited to a site plan, enlarged site plans, floor plans, elevations, site sections,
site elevations, outline specifications and other documents necessary and as
01203.0006/523512 2 A-1
A-25 I-26
required to illustrate the proposed project scope and concept. The Consultant
shall incorporate into the Schematic Documents the proposed program and
functional requirements as approved by the City, established in the Master
Plan,as well as revisions in the pre-design phase.
2. The Schematic Design documents shall include preliminary selections of
major building systems, and construction materials shall be noted on the
drawings or described in writing.
3. Consultant shall meet with the City's Contract Officer at intervals as
necessary to develop the design and review progress drawings and other
documents which depict schematic status of the Project design.
4. Community/stakeholder workshops as required by the City's Contract
Officer are proposed during this phase in order to update Project design
progress and solicit comment.
5. Consultant shall target LEED Certified Equivalent per the U.S. Green
Building Council (USGBC) rating system and provide LEED checklists and
reports indicating probable design credits for the Project and assignment of
subconsultant responsibility for ensuring each measure is properly applied to
the Project design.
6. Consultant shall coordinate as required with City's staff in order to
confirm compliance with City standards and to develop furniture and
equipment plans for the Project design that are consistent with City
requirements and standards.
7. Consultant shall prepare a preliminary site development package to
include civil plans illustrating demolition; grading and paving; hydrology
calculations and drainage (to include potential detention basins and/or bio-
swales)and all utility services.
8. Consultant has the sole responsibility for preparing documentation of the
preliminary design for review and comment by all appropriate agencies and
utility providers, including but not limited to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
and others as required. Consultant is not responsible for the actions, non-
actions, change of action by these agencies and utility providers after all
efforts are made by Consultant to solicit review and to incorporate all review
comments. All work associated with change-of-action based on previous
direction by the agencies identified will be considered Additional Services.
9. Consultant shall prepare an Estimated Project Construction Cost Estimate
in a format acceptable to the City at 100% completion of Schematic Design,
the purpose of which is to show the probable construction cost in relation to
the City's Construction Budget. If the Consultant perceives site considerations
01203.0006/523512.2 A-2
A-26 I-27
or City project requirements which render the project cost prohibitive, the
Consultant shall disclose such conditions in writing to the City immediately.
10. Consultant shall make presentations of the Schematic Design documents
and 100% Schematic Design Cost Estimates to the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes staff, City Council, Commissions and others as required in order to
update design progress, solicit comment, and obtain approval for the
Schematic Design project scope and budget.
11. Consultant shall make presentations of the 100% Schematic Design Cost
Estimates to the City. The City shall prepare at City's discretion and at its own
expense the independent third party estimates of probable construction costs.
All cost estimates will be reconciled with an City/ Project Management Cost
Estimate developed by an independent third party cost estimator. The
Consultant shall attend one (1) cost reconciliation meeting with the third-party
cost estimator for the purpose of reconciling the 100% Schematic Design
Estimated Project Construction Costs.
12. City's Contract Officer and Consultant shall meet to review the
provisional Schematic Design Documents and Cost Estimates in order to
reach agreement on any City-authorized adjustment to the approved Project
schedule or construction budget and identify any necessary clarifications of the
provisional Schematic Design Documents.
13. Consultant shall make all City-requested changes, additions, deletions, and
corrections in the Schematic Design Documents which may result from the
City's or any constructability review, at no additional cost to the City, so long
as they are not in conflict with the requirements of the public agencies having
jurisdiction or prior approval, or inconsistent with earlier City direction or
Consultant's professional judgment. If such changes are inconsistent with
prior City direction, Consultant shall make such alterations and be
compensated therefore pursuant to the Additional Services provision of this
Agreement.
14. Unless City agrees otherwise in writing, the Consultant shall revise
respective provisional Schematic Design documents and Cost Estimates to
reflect adjustments and clarifications agreed upon in the review meeting and
resubmit Schematic Design documents and Cost Estimates to City. Once
approved, the revised Schematic Design documents shall become the final
Schematic Design Documents.
15. If the City's Contract Officer has not authorized in writing a revision to the
project scope and the Estimated Project Construction Cost based on Schematic
Design documents exceeds the City's Construction Budget by more than ten
percent (10%), the City may request the Consultant to amend, at the
Consultant's sole cost and expense, the Schematic Design Documents in order
to meet the City's Construction Budget.
01203.0006/523512 2 A-3
A-27 I-28
PHASE 2
C. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT. The work shall be performed by the Consultant,
in conjunction with subconsultants MGAC, KPFF, Englekirk Institutional,
NOVUS,Darkhorse Lighworks, KSA,and Technical Resources Consultants.
1. Upon written approval by the City's Contract Officer of the Schematic
Design documents and the 100% Schematic Design Estimated Project
Construction Cost, the Consultant shall prepare Design Development
documents consisting of, but not limited to, site plans, enlarged site plans,
building floor plans, enlarged floor plans, site sections, building sections,
building elevations, typical construction details, finish schedules indicating
finish selection, interior elevations, outline specifications and other drawings
and documents sufficient to fix and describe the scope, relationship, size,
appearance and character of the project components.
2. Design Development documents shall include Mechanical, Electrical, and
Plumbing system designs and equipment layouts including single line
diagrams and an energy analysis report.
3. Consultant shall provide interior and exterior lighting design services to
include lighting design plans and schedules and photometric calculations as
required for permit and to confirm minimum or maximum light levels for site
development and building areas, including parking lots, path of travel and
emergency egress.
4. Consultant shall update the LEED checklists and report identifying
probable design credits for the Project and prepare as needed concept
cost/benefit analysis of individual design elements for review and
consideration by the City.
5. Consultant shall finalize storm water and design drainage plans and
incorporate site features in conformance with the guidelines of the Governing
Agency and as required to comply with City regulations.
6. Consultant shall take the lead role in applying for and obtaining required
approvals from all federal, state, regional or local agencies concerned with the
Project.
7. Consultant shall interpret all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules,
and regulations with respect to access, including those of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). Consultant shall identify all non-compliant
construction within the Project scope area and complete plans and
specifications for site and building improvements within the Project scope
area as required to correct or remove non-compliant construction as required
for permit, including, but not limited to path of travel, curb ramps and
accessible parking.
01203.0006/523512.2 A-4
A-28 I-29
8. Consultant shall meet with the City at intervals as necessary to develop the
design and to review progress drawings and other documents that depict the
Design Development status of the Project.
9. Consultant shall establish an updated Estimated Project Construction
Costs at 100% completion of Design Development documents containing
detail consistent with the Design Development documents.
10. Community/stakeholder workshops are proposed as required by the City's
Contract Officer during this phase in order to update Project design progress
and solicit comment.
11. Consultant shall make presentations of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
staff, City Council, Commissions, and others as required by the City's
Contract Officer, to update design progress, solicit comment, and obtain
approval for the Design Development project scope and budget.
12. Design Development documents and 100% Design Development Cost
Estimates to the City. All cost estimates will be reconciled with an
City/Project Management Cost Estimate developed by an independent third
party cost estimator. The City shall prepare at City's discretion and at its own
expense the independent third party estimates of probable construction costs.
The Consultant shall attend one (1) cost reconciliation meeting with the third-
party cost estimator for the purpose of reconciling the 100% Design
Development Estimated Project Construction Costs.
13. The City and the Consultant shall meet to review the provisional Design
Development Documents and Cost Estimates in order to reach agreement on
any City-authorized adjustment to the approved Project schedule or
construction budget and identify any necessary clarifications of the provisional
Design Development Documents and/or the 100% Design Development Cost
Estimates.
14. Consultant shall make all City-requested changes, additions, deletions, and
corrections in the Design Development documents which may result from any
constructability review, at no additional cost to the City, so long as they are
not in conflict with the requirements of the public agencies having jurisdiction
or prior approval, or inconsistent with earlier City direction or Consultant's
professional judgment. If such changes are inconsistent with prior City
direction, Consultant shall make such alterations and be compensated
therefore pursuant to the Additional Services provision of this Agreement.
15. Unless the City agrees otherwise in writing, the Consultant shall revise
provisional Design Development documents and Cost Estimates to reflect
adjustments and clarifications agreed upon in the review meeting and
resubmit. Design Development documents and Cost Estimates to the City.
01203.0006/523512.2 A-5
A-29 I-30
Once approved, the revised Design Development documents shall become the
final Design Development Documents.
16. If the City has not authorized in writing a revision to the project scope and
Estimated Project Construction Costs based on Design Development
documents exceeds the City's Construction Budget by more than ten percent
10%), the City may request the Consultant to amend, at the Consultant's sole
cost and expense, the Design Development Documents in order to meet the
City's Construction Budget.
D. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. The work shall be performed by
Consultant, in conjunction with subconsultants MGAC, KPFF, Englekirk
Institutional, NOVUS, Darkhorse Lightworks, KSA, and Technical
Resources Consultants.
1. Based on approved Design Development Documents and the approved
updated project Construction Budget, the Consultant shall prepare, for
approval by City, Construction Documents consisting of drawings and other
documents setting forth in detail the requirements for construction of the
Project. The Consultant shall prepare complete drawings and specifications as
are necessary for developing complete bids and for properly executing the
Project work. Drawings and specifications shall set forth in detail all of the
following: 1) the Project construction work to be done; 2) the materials,
workmanship, finishes, and equipment required for the Project; and 3) the
utility service connection equipment and site work.
2. Consultant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWPPP) which will include Best Management Practices (BMP's)that outline
standard practices that can be implemented to decrease the discharge of
pollutants into storm drains during construction operation on the site.
3. Consultant shall submit a written Estimated Project Construction Cost for
the project based on the Construction Document Phase Documents at 90%
completion. Construction Document Phase Documents shall be consistent
with the Project Construction Budget and if not in conformance shall be
revised until approved in writing by the City.
4. All cost estimates will be reconciled with an City/Project Management
Cost Estimate developed by an independent third-party cost estimator. The
City shall prepare at City's discretion and at its own expense the independent
third-party estimate of probable construction costs. The Consultant shall
attend one (1) cost reconciliation meeting at each Construction Document
milestone with the City's third-party cost estimator for the purpose of
reconciling the 90% Construction Document Estimated Project Construction
Cost.
01203.0006/523512.2 A-6
A-30 I-31
5. The City's Contract Officer and the Consultant shall meet to review the
provisional 100% Construction Documents and Cost Estimate to reach
agreement on any City-authorized adjustment to the approved Project schedule
or construction budget and identify any necessary clarifications of the
provisional Construction Documents and Cost Estimates.
6. The parties agree that the Consultant, and not the City, possess the
requisite expertise to determine the constructability of the Construction
Documents. However, the City reserves the right to conduct one or more
constructability review processes with the Construction Documents, and to
hire an independent architect or other consultant to perform such reviews. Any
such independent constructability reviews shall be at the City's expense.
7. Consultant shall make all City-requested changes, additions, deletions, and
corrections in the Construction Documents which may result from any
constructability review, at no additional cost to the City, so long as they are
not in conflict with the requirements of the public agencies having jurisdiction
or prior approval, or inconsistent with earlier City direction or with
Consultant's professional judgment. If such changes are inconsistent with
prior City direction, Consultant shall make such alterations and be
compensated therefore pursuant to the Additional Services provision of this
Agreement.
8. Unless the City agrees otherwise in writing, the Consultant shall revise
provisional Construction Documents and Cost Estimates to reflect adjustments
and clarifications agreed upon in the review meeting and resubmit
Construction Documents and Cost Estimates to the City. Once approved, the
revised Construction Documents shall become the final 100% Construction
Documents.
9. The Consultant shall provide two (2) sets full size (30" x 42") and half
size (15" x 21") hard copies at 50% Construction Documents for City review
and input. Changes directed by City which are inconsistent with prior City
direction shall be made by the Consultant and compensated as Additional
Services. The scope of and compensation for such changes shall be mutually
agreed upon by the Consultant and City before such changes are initiated.
10. Revise the 50% Construction Documents and submit another two (2) set of
documents at 90% Construction Documents for City review and input.
Changes directed by City which are inconsistent with prior City direction shall
be made by the Consultant and compensated as Additional Services. The
scope of and compensation for such changes shall be mutually agreed upon by
the Consultant and City before such changes are initiated.
11. Consultant shall submit two (2) sets of 90% Construction Documents for
submittal to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval.
01203.0006/523512.2 A-7
A-31 I-32
12. Complete corrections on the 100%Construction Documents as required by
the various City departments to obtain final approval of the Construction
Documents for bidding purposes.
13. Provide a final Cost Estimate and Project Schedule to confirm the project
is on target.
14. Submit two (2) sets of approved 100% Construction Documents and
Specifications for City's records and electronic copies on a CD along with a
flash drive.
E. PERMIT. The work shall be performed by the Consultant, in conjunction
with subconsultants KPFF,Englekirk Institutional,NOVUS,and KSA.
1. The Construction Documents and Specifications must be in such form as
will enable the Consultant and City to secure the required permits and
approvals for all federal, state, regional or local agencies concerned with the
Project.
F. BIDDING. The work shall be performed by Consultant, in conjunction with
subconsultants KPFF,Englekirk Institutional,NOVUS, and KSA.
1. Assist in the submittal of the Bid Drawings (100% Construction
Documents) and Specifications to the City's Project Manager.
2. Respond to all Requests for Information (RFIs) working with the City's
Project Manager.
3. Assist the City's Project Manager in reviewing and evaluating the bids and
related documents for contract award to the lowest responsive and responsible
bidder.
II. Exclusions.
See Exhibit"A-I"
III. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible work
products to the City:
1. Models and drawings
2. Schematic Design Documents
3. Preliminary site development package
4. Estimated Project Construction Cost Estimates
5. Presentation files
6. Design Development documents
7. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
01203.0006/523512.2 A-8
A-32 I-33
8. Construction Documents
IV. 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:
NOT APPLICABLE
V. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be revised by
the Consultant without additional charge to the City until found satisfactory and accepted
by City.
VI. Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services:
A. Jim Favaro, Steve Johnson, Brian Davis and Kathy Williams
B. KSA: Katherine Spitz, Jake Patton
C. KPFF: Tom Gsell
D. MGAC: Rick Lloyd
E. Englekirk Institutional:, Tom Sabol and Diana Nishi
F. NOVUS: Michael Leung
G. Darkhorse Lightworks: TRC Dawn Hollingsworth
01203.0006/ 523512.2 A-9
A-33 I-34
EXHIBIT "A-1"
EXCLUSIONS
The following services are expressly not included in this Scope of Work, and shall be
charged as Additional Services pursuant to Section 1.8 if requested by City.
A. General
1. Land Survey
2. Geotechnical Investigative Report
3. Phase 1 or Phase 2 Environmental Review
4. Tree Survey or Arborist Services
5. Materials Testing
6. Hazardous materials abatement scope related to survey of existing conditions,
drawings, reports, documents and or specifications.
7. Methane extraction systems
8. Off-site public improvements, not described in this Proposal including adjoining
street widening.
9. Physical presentation models
10. Partnering Workshops
11. Additional cost estimates or revisions to completed cost estimates
B. Civil Engineering
1. Preparation of schematic opinion of probable construction costs.
2. Preparation of preliminary below-slab de-watering plan
3. Preparation of design development opinion of probable construction costs.
4. Assist in the filing of permits for the permanent or temporary discharge of
groundwater.
5. Special studies.
6. Land surveys.
7. Design of site retaining walls.
8. Services relative to future facilities, systems, and equipment.
9. Service to investigate existing conditions or facilities, or to make measured
drawings thereof.
10. Coordination of construction performed by separate contractors or by owner's
forces.
01203.0006/523512.2 Al-10
A-34 I-35
11. Services regarding work of a construction manage or separate consultants retained
by owner.
12. Detailed estimates of construction cost.
13. Record drawings.
14. Services of sub-consultants.
15. Storm water facilities.
16. Road widening.
17. Bicycle paths.
18. Traffic signals.
19. Street dedications.
20. Street lighting.
21. Striping plans.
22. Sewer improvements.
23. Water improvements.
24. Traffic studies.
25. Franchise Utility Coordination, includes natural gas lines, power and
communications conduits, etc.
26. Assist the owner in coordinating the abandonment and/or relocation of existing
franchise utilities.
27. Underground mechanical systems coordination, includes coordination of chilled
water lines, steam lines, distilled water, etc. Note that coordination includes
horizontal alignment only. Detailed design of these items is to be accomplished by
others.
28. Design of sewer seepage pits, septic tanks, or leech fields.
29. Design of water wells.
30. Preparation of excavation documents/rough grading plans.
31. Preparation of studies of alternative site plans.
32. Flood,plain,wetland, or environmental work.
33. Design of lift stations for sanitary sewer or storm drainage systems.
34. Design of booster pumps for inadequate water pressure.
35. Intensive research and testing to determine conditions of existing site utilities (e.g.
potholing, smoke testing, dye testing,pressure testing, and video testing.
36. Assist the general contractor with the design and permits associates with
construction site dewatering.
01203.0006/523512.2 A 1-1 1
A-35 I-36
37. Design and documentation relative to special storm water detention and treatment
systems required to obtain LEED credits.
38. Landscape Architecture
39. Hardscape design
40. Landscape design for adjacent hillside areas
41. Playground or sports courts equipment
42. Community Outreach
43. Lighting Design
44. Record Drawings/As-Builts
45. LEED calculations and documentation
C. Structural Engineering
1. Structural engineering services outside of community center building except
foundation design and detailing of playground equipment
D. MEP Engineering
1. Design change requests and LEED strategy reassessment requested after
completion of 100% Schematic Design that require significant redesign and/or
redrawing.
2. Significant changes to building or MEP systems requiring reassessment of
systems proposed will require additional services to assess.
3. MEP demolition drawings or documentation of any existing as-built conditions
4. Work on buildings and site other than those described under'Project Description"
above
5. Design of systems outside of five feet from building or buildings described under
Project Description" above, except for site related work as included in Services
descriptions.
6. LEED and Title 24-2016 Required Commissioning and 3rd Party Peer Reviews
7. Construction management or bidding coordination
8. Kitchen design or specification of any kitchen equipment
9. Construction cost estimates will be by construction cost estimator. We will review
cost estimator's pricing,participate in reconciliation and provide feedback.
10. Acoustical calculations for systems are not included. We will include
modifications to our systems per your acoustical consultants' recommendations
within our base fee.
11. Smoke modeling and any work on atriums
12. Routing of utilities (gas, water, sanitary, electrical, etc.) outside of five feet from
the building
01203.0006/523512 2 A1-12
A-36 I-37
13. Design of building footing drainage and/or sub-slab groundwater drainage will be
performed by others.
14. Trenching and backfilling details or specifications related to underground piping
and/or tanks
15. Cogeneration systems
16. Audio Visual systems, Cabling for telephone or CATV, Fire Alarm and Security
system design
17. Layout of fire sprinkler heads and routing of fire sprinkler piping in the building
18. Fire alarm system design
19. Design or testing of fire protection systems
20. Fuel oil under/above ground storage tanks, pumping, piping, and leak detection
systems.
21. Storm water detention/reclamation system design.
22. Solar thermal water heating system design.
23. Medical gas system and piping distribution design including air, vacuum, oxygen
and nitrogen.
24. Full Design of Solar Photovoltaic systems.
25. Energy storage power systems
26. Structural calculations for the seismic restraint of mechanical, electrical and
plumbing equipment are not included
27. Waterproofing details/requirements for building components by others
28. Cost reduction requiring redesign after approved systems have been designed
including but not limited to change order issues or ASI's. Issue of ASIs, change
orders, plan revisions, etc. generated by others will require additional fees to be
submitted for prior approval before completing these services.
29. Review of change order costs initiated by others will be billed hourly, on prior
approval.
30. Determination/interpretation of egress lighting paths with local officials.
31. Distributed antenna system.
32. Kitchen exhaust and make-up air systems design.
33. Smoke control system or stair/elevator shaft pressurization system design.
34. Any Plug Load Monitoring or Submissions
35. Lighting design for areas not specifically listed under Lighting scope
36. Theatrical Lighting
37. Design of Landscape and Exterior Lighting
01203.0006/523512.2 A1-13
A-37 I-38
38. Mock-ups
39. Cost estimating
40. Multiple-name specifications
41. Control system specifications
42. Custom fixture design
43. Supervision of contractors
44. Aiming of installed light fixtures
45. Life Cycle Cost Analysis
46. Record drawings of completed project
47. Cost reduction requiring redesign
48. Determination/interpretation of egress lighting paths with local officials
49. Location of Exit Signs
50. Preparation and documentation of any LEED or similar credit programs
51. Power to street lighting at city sidewalks and right of ways.
52. Low Voltage Conduit design,routing and coordination.
53. Design-Bid-Build Early Foundation Package.
54. Filing of applications for building or other permits, payment of any fees
associated with permits or associated applications.
55. Preparation of cost estimates.
56. Overall project BIM management.
57. Participations in development of BIM execution plans.
58. Design of an emergency or standby back up power system via a diesel generator.
59. Responses to additional rounds of comments from owners. One round of
comments has been included in the scope of work.
60. Design for grease interceptor and plumbing for a commercial kitchen.
E. Lighting
1. Revit model production. Darkhorse will utilize the Revit model to extract current
backgrounds, sections and details, but will not produce a linked model. It is the
architect or engineer's responsibility to populate the model with lighting families.
Darkhorse will assist to obtain available manufacturers families for luminaires
specified.
2. Additional site visits shall be billed at the day rates as noted in the fee schedule.
Day rates are described as one (1)man-day of 8 hours.
3. Production time for additional drawing submissions not included in the scope of
services.
01203.0006/523512.2 Al-14
A-38 I-39
4. Bidding and Negotiation.
5. As-built drawings, Record drawings and Close-out documentation.
6. Decorative lighting (FF&E) is to be provided by architect. Darkhorse shall assist
with sources and dimming and at times might suggest fixtures but the
responsibility is that of the interior designers. Should it be requested that
Darkhorse source decorative light fixtures, a separate fee should be assessed based
on the scope of the request.
7. Programming of the lighting controls system. This work shall be completed by the
manufacturer's authorized personnel.
8. Commissioning of lighting and controls systems. This work shall be performed by
a certified commissioning agent.
9. Emergency lighting, life safety. As directed, Darkhorse shall incorporate
architectural lighting fixtures capable of emergency lighting to support and assist
in efforts through zoning but it is the Electrical Engineer's responsibility to circuit
the emergency lighting, verify that it meets code and specify visible emergency
lighting, concealed EM lights, BOH, Staircase and other lighting not in
Darkhorse's scope.
10. Energy code calculations, LEED submittals, lighting power density and other
permit documents are supplied by consulting engineers. Darkhorse shall provide a
fixture schedule and zone schedule with wattage information for areas within
scope but does not have the authority to submit to agencies and municipalities.
11. LEED Compliance, WELL Building, Savings by Design or other third-party
building program documentation unless specifically included. Related services are
considered additional services upon request.
12. Living Building Challenge documentation and specifications unless specifically
included. Compliance is the responsibility of manufacturers. If notified at the
beginning the project will seek LBC status, Darkhorse will make every effort to
specify products in compliance but does not warrant products specified comply
with the LBC Red List. Coordination and all related efforts are considered
additional services.
13. Landmarks approval documentation.
14. Lighting renderings are an additional service. Fees shall be based on the extent of
the request.
15. Mock-ups shall be billed at the hourly rate. Any expenses associated with the
construction of materials for the mock up shall be paid upon receipt of invoice.
16. Additional photometric calculations shall be billed as additional services at the
hourly rates set forth herein.
17. Review and testing of fixture and/or control system substitutions proposed by
others.
01203.0006/523512.2 A 1-15
A-39 I-40
18. Should the client request custom light fixtures; the design shall be billed at
4,500.00 USD per fixture design. All copyrights remain the property of
Darkhorse. A custom lighting fixture is defined as an entirely new design and
would require design approvals, prototypes and coordination of fabrication.
Darkhorse does not charge additional fees for assisting with modifications or
coordinating custom fixture as provided by other designers.
19. Should the overall design phase extend past twenty (20) months Darkhorse
reserves the right to renegotiate fees and ask for additional compensation due to
additional hours needed.
20. The specification and design of lighting control and dimming system, unless
specifically included above.
21. Value engineering past 100%Design Development phases.
22. Written specifications beyond the information provided in our fixture schedule.
01203.0006/523512 2 A 1-16
A-40 I-41
EXHIBIT "B"
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
Added text is indicated in bold italics, and deleted text is indicated in
stfilEethfeugh.
I.Section 4.5,Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment, is amended to read:
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. The following
subconsultants are deemed approved: KPFF Consulting Engineers; KSA Design Studios;
Englekirk Institutional; NOVUS Design Studio; Darkhorse Lightworks, LLC; MGAC; and
Technical Resources Consultants. 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.
II. Section 7.7,Liquidated Damages, is deleted in its entirety.
01203.0006/523512.2 B-1
A-41 I-42
EXHIBIT "C"
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I.Consultant and subconsultants shall perform the following tasks at the following
rates:
Discipline/Firm Predesign Schematic Design Construction Permit Bid Sub-
design Development Documents Budget
Architecture/ 45,000 45,000 60,000 125,000 $5,000 $3,500 $283,500
Johnson Favaro
Cost Planning/ 0 3,000 6,000 4,500 0 0 $13,500
MGAC
Civil Engineering/ 0 19,360 20,240 35,200 $10,200 $3,000 $88,000
KPFF
Structural Engineering/ 0 2,750 6,300 24,000 500 $500 $34, 050
Englekirk
MEP,FLS/Novus 0 10,000 13,000 22,500 $3,000 $1,500 $ 50, 000
Lighting/ 0 0 4,500 7,500 0 0 $12,000
Darkhorse Lighting
Landscape 0 10,520 9,800 18,000 590 $500 $ 39,410
Architecture/KSA
Specifications/TRC 0 0 5,000 2,000 $1,000 0 8,000
Reimbursable 10,000
Expenses*
TOTALS 45,000 90, 630 124,840 238, 700 $20,290 $9,000 $538,460
Reimbursable expenses shall include reasonable out of pocket expenses that are incurred and
paid by Consultant and subconsultants in furtherance of this Agreement. Reimbursable
expenses shall include:
Printing and reproduction costs
Project-related mileage
Shipping, overnight mail,postage,messenger and other handling of drawings
and documents
Presentation models
Fees paid to third parties for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction
over the Project
01203.0006/523512.2 C-
A-42 I-43
Additional consultants not included in this Agreement, subject to the City's
Contract Officer's prior written approval.
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 billing rates for Consultant's and subconsultants' personnel are attached as
Exhibit C-1.
01203.0006/ 523512.2 C-2
A-43 I-44
EXHIBIT "C-1"
CONSULTANT TEAM HOURLY RATES
Johnson Favaro-Architect
Partners 220
Senior Associate 180
Senior Staff 3 120
KSA Design -Landscape Architect
Principal 235
Project Manager/Project Designer $135
Draftsperson 90
MGAC - Cost Consultant
Senior Cost Manager 200
Cost Manager 175
Assistant Cost Manager 100
KPFF- Civil Engineers
Principal 225
Project Manager 180
Project Engineer 150
Englekirk Institutional-Structural Engineers
Principal 275
Project Director 195
Associate 175
Novus-MEP
Senior Engineer 135
BIM Designer 115
Darkhorse Lightworks-Lighting
Principal 190
Senior Designer 175
Designer 150
Technical Resources Consultants - Specifications
Principal 165
01203.0006/523512.2 C-3
A-44 I-45
EXHIBIT "D"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I.Consultant shall perform all Services timely in accordance with the following
schedule.
Phase
Duration
Start Finish
Calendar Days)
A. Pre-Design 45 11.01.18 12.15.18
RPV Review and NTP 15 12.15.18 01.01.18
B. Schematic Design 45 01.01.18 2.15.19
RPV Review and NTP 15 2.15.19 3.01. 19
C. Design Development 45 3.01.19 4.15.18
RPV Review and NTP 15 4.15.18 5.01.19
D. Construction Documents 90 5.01.19 08.01.19
RPV Review and NTP 15 08.01.19 08.15.19
E. Permit 45 08.15.19 10.01.19
F. Bid 15 10. 01.19 10.15.19
II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the
following dates.
Per Section I, above.
III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in
accordance with Section 3.2.
01203.0006/523512.2 D-1
A-45 I-46