20221004 Late CorrespondenceEnyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
City Clerk
terit@rpvca.gov
Phone -{310) 544-5217
Address:
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, October 4, 2022 4:46 PM
Enyssa Momoli
FW: Re the Agena item tonight addressing the reserved parking on Crenshaw Blvd
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. Appointments are strongly encouraged, and virtual
appointments are available. Many services are available online, including plan check review services. To schedule an
appointment, visit the Staff Directory on the City website to find the appropriate department. Some employees may be
working remotely. Please be patient with us as there may be delays or minor inconveniences in responding to your
inquiry.
-----Origi na I Message-----
Fro m: Bonnie Luthi <brlinrpv@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 4:46 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re the Agena item tonight addressing the reserved parking on Crenshaw Blvd
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To Whom it May Concern,
I am a long time resident of the Del Cerro neighborhood and a past HOA Board member. I am strongly recommending
that RPV Staff holds off making any changes to the current parking reservation system on Crenshaw Blvd until {1) the
permanent gates can be installed at the Burma and Rattlesnake Trailheads and, {2) Staff has hired and trained adequate
personnel and completed a user survey to educate the visitors.
1
1.
Thank you for taking into consideration my concerns.
Bonnie Luthi
#4 Amber Sky Dr
Sent from my iPhone
2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
y
{,+o
"' ~ . ..,
CITY OF ~
'P;,J 20'1 \
"' ~ R,ANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
OCTOBER 4, 2022
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No.
F
2
3
Description of Material
Email from Bob Nelson
Emails from Bridget & John Stillo; Kathy Christie; Kim Lindsey ; Cindy
Chu; John & Denise Girardi;and Kathy Edgerton
Email exchange between Director of Community Development
Rukavina and Barbara Sattler
Email from Glenn Cornell
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, October 3, 2022.**
Respectfully submitted,
d ~-~
Tere~kaoka
L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\202212022 Coversheets\20221004 additions revisions to ag enda .docx
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, October 4, 2022 1 :45 PM
CityClerk
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: CC Mtng 10/4, Consent Item F (ADU etc) & SB 897 Impact
SB 897 ADU JrADU New Law.pdf
Teresa Takaoka
City Clerk
terit@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5217
Address:
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.ggy
•~ O~wnl.,ad on tho
• AppStore-
1111i,.,; GEl'ITON
~ G<>oglePI~
may l1c priviicq<:d,
lnciiv!dU?tl or entity
City l-ta/1 is open to the public during regular business hours. Appointments are strongly encouraged, and
virtual appointments are available. Many services are available online, including plan check review
5£f.'i.ice 2. To schedule on appointment, visit the Staff Directory on the City website to find the appropriate
deportment. Some employees may be working remotely. Please be patient with us as there may be delays
or minor inconveniences in responding to your inquiry.
From: Robert Nelson <robert.nelson@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 1:39 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Julie Hamill <Julie.Hamill@rpvca.gov>; David Chura <david.chura@rpvca.gov>
Subject: CC Mtng 10/4, Consent Item F (ADU etc) & SB 897 Impact
Mayor Bradley, Mayor Pro-Tern Ferraro, Councilmen, Director Rukavina
Copy PC Chair Julie and PC Vice-Chair Dave
In tracking bills signed by our Gov that could impact our Planning Commission's work, I note he signed SB 897
which re-addresses many elements of ADU and JrAOU existing legislation, the subject of your Consent
Calendar item F tonight.
Attached is only the Legislative Analysis of this bill. My assumption is our legal folks have been tracking SB 897
since it's introduction and can, tonight, give you some of it's impacts to Item F. If they cannot, the attachment
can.
1
Obviously, as a result, at a minimum we all probably will be revisiting our ADU, Jr ADU ordinances, codes in the
near future to come into SB 897 compliance.
Just thought you all are busy and maybe this could help make sure you are up to date on Item F and needed
revisions.
Bob Nelson
Planning Commissioner
2
EG SLAl,IVE F'ORMATIO
BILL TEXT
Bill PDF Version: 09 /28/22 -Chaptered 09 /08/22 -
Enrolled 08/25/22 -Amended
SB--897 Accessory dwelling units: junior
accessory dwelling units .. (2021-2022)
Date Published: 09/29/2022 02:00 PM
Senate Bill No. 897
CHAPTER 664
An act to amend Section 65852.22 of, to add Section
65852.23 to, and to repeal and amend Section 65852.2 of,
the Government Code, and to amend Section 17980.12 of the
Health and Safety Code, relating to land use.
[ Approved by Governor September 28, 2022.
Filed with Secretary of
State September 28, 2022.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 897, Wieckowski. Accessory dwelling units: junior
accessory dwelling units.
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, authorizes a local
agency, by ordinance or 111inisterial approval, to provide for
the creation of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for
residential use, as specified. Existing law authorizes a local
agency to impose standards on accessory dwelling units that
include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback,
landscape, architectural review, and maximum size of a unit
This bill would require that the standards imposed on
accessory dwelling units be objective. For purposes of this
requirement, the bill would define "objective standard"
as a standard that involves no personal or subjective
judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable,
as specified.
The bill would also prohibit a local agency from denying
an application for a permit to create an accessory
dwelling unit due to the correction of nonconforming
zoning conditions, building code violations, or unpermitted
structures that do not present a threat to public health and
safety and are not affected by the construction of the
accessory dwelling unit.
This bill would require a local agency to review and
issue a demolition permit for a detached garage that is
to be replaced by an accessory dwelling unit at the same
time as it reviews and issues the permit for the
accessory dwelling unit. The bill would prohibit an
applicant from being required to provide written notice or
post a placard for the demolition of a detached garage that is
to be replaced by an accessory dwelling unit, as specified.
Existing law provides that an accessory dwelling unit may
either be an attached or detached residential dwelling unit,
and prescribes the minimum and maximum unit size
requirements, height limitations, and setback requirements
that a local agency may establish, including a 16-foot height
limitation and a 4-foot side and rear setback requirement.
This bill would increase the maximum height limitation
that may be imposed by a local agency on an accessory
dwelling unit to 18 feet if the accessory dwelling unit is
within 1 / 2 mile walking distance of a major transit stop
or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are
defined, or if the accessory dwelling unit is detached and
on a lot that has an existing multifamily, multistory
dwelling, as specified.
The bill would increase the maximum height limitation
that may be imposed by a local agency on an accessory
dwelling unit to 2 5 feet if the accessory dwelling unit is
attached to a primary dwelling, except as specified.
Existing law requires an ordinance that provides for the
creation of an accessory dwelling unit to require accessory
dwelling units to comply with local building code
requirements that apply to detached dwellings, as
appropriate. Existing law also prohibits an ordinance from
requiring an accessory dwelling unit to provide fire
sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence.
This bill would provide that the construction of an
accessory dwelling unit does not constitute a Group R
occupancy change under the local building code, except
as specified.
The bill would prohibit the construction of an accessory
dwelling unit from triggering a requirement that fire
sprinklers be installed in the existing primary dwelling.
Existing law provides that a local agency must ministerially
approve an application for a building permit within a
residential or mixed-use zone to create not more than 2
accessory dwelling units that are located on a lot that has an
existing multifamily dwelling, but are detached from that
multifamily dwelling and are subject to a height limitation of
16 feet and a 4-foot side and rear setback requirement.
This bill would change the height limitation applicable
to an accessory dwelling unit subject to ministerial
approval to 18 feet if the accessory dwelling unit is
within 1 / 2 mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a
high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined, or if
the accessory dwelling unit is detached and on a lot that has
an existing multifamily, multistory dwelling, as specified.
The bill would change the height limitation applicable to
an accessory dwelling unit subject to ministerial
approval to 2 5 feet if the accessory dwelling unit is
attached to a primary dwelling, except as specified.
The bill, if the existing multifamily dwelling exceeds
applicable height requirements or has a rear or side
setback of less than 4 feet, would prohibit a local agency
from requiring any modification to the existing
multifamily dwelling to satisfy these requirements.
The bill would prohibit a local agency from rejecting an
application for an accessory dwelling unit because the
existing multifamily dwelling exceeds applicable height
requirements or has a rear or side setback of less than 4 feet.
Existing law prohibits a local agency from imposing parking
standards on certain accessory dwelling units, including
those that are located within 1 / 2-mile walking distance of
public transit.
This bill would also prohibit a local agency from
imposing any parking standards on an accessory dwelling
unit that is included in an application to create a new single-
family dwelling unit or a new multifamily dwelling on the
same lot, provided that the accessory dwelling unit meets
other specified requirements.
Existing law, when a local agency has not adopted an
ordinance governing accessory dwelling units, requires a
permitting agency to act on an application to create an
accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit
within specified timeframes.
This bill would require a permitting agency to return in
writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list
of items that are defective or deficient and a description
of how the application can be remedied by the applicant,
if the permitting agency denies an application for an
accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling
unit.
(2) Existing law also provides for the creation of junior
accessory dwelling units by local ordinance, or, if a local
agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial
approval, in accordance with specified standards and
conditions.
Existing law requires an ordinance that provides for the
creation of a junior accessory dwelling unit to, among other
things,
(A) require that the unit be constructed within the walls of
the proposed or existing single-fa1nily residence,
(B) require that the unit include a separate entrance from
the main entrance to the proposed or existing single-family
residence, and
(C) require owner-occupancy in the single-family residence
in which the junior accessory dwelling unit is permitted.
This bill would specify that enclosed uses within the
proposed or existing single-family residence, such as
attached garages, are considered a part of the proposed or
existing single-family residence.
The bill would require a junior accessory dwelling unit
that does not include a separate bathroom to include a
separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure,
with an interior entry to the main living area.
The bill would also prohibit a local agency from denying
an application for a permit to create a junior accessory
dwelling unit due to the correction of nonconforming zoning
conditions, building code violations, or unpermitted
structures that do not present a threat to public health and
safety and are not affected by the construction of the junior
accessory dwelling unit.
(3) Existing law requires a local agency, in enforcing building
standards applicable to accessory dwelling units, to delay
enforcement for up to 5 years upon the owner submitting an
application requesting the delay on the basis that correcting
the violation is not necessary to protect health and safety.
This bill would prohibit a local agency from denying a
permit for an unpermitted accessory dwelling unit that was
constructed before January 1, 2018, because, among other
things, the unit is in violation of building standards or state
or local standards applicable to accessory dwelling units,
unless the local agency makes a finding that correcting the
violation is necessary to protect the health and safety of the
public or occupants of the structure. This bill would specify
that this prohibition does not apply to a building that is
deemed substandard under specified provisions of law.
( 4) Existing law requires the Department of Housing and
Community Development to administer various programs
intended to promote the development of housing, including
the Multifamily Housing Program, pursuant to which the
department provides financial assistance in the form of
deferred payment loans to pay for the eligible costs of
development for specified activities.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature that
accessory dwelling unit grant programs provide funding
for predevelopment costs and facilitate accountability
and oversight, as specified.
(5) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section
65852.2 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2221 to be
operative only if this bill and AB 2221 are enacted and this
bill is enacted last.
(6) By imposing new duties on local governments with
respect to the approval of accessory dwelling units and
junior accessory dwelling units, the bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs
mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish
procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is
required by this act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal
Committee: yes Local Program: yes
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, October 3, 2022 5:18 PM
CityClerk
Subject: Fw: ParkMobile parking system
Le
From: Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 4:21 PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: ParkMobile parking system
Daniel Trautner
Deputy Director
Recreation and Parks
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
danielt@rpvca.gov -Off (310) 544-5264 -Fax (310) 544-5379
-----Original Message-----
From: Bridget Stillo <bnstillo@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 3:24 PM
To: Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: ParkMobile parking system
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
>
>
> Dear Dan Trautner,
>
> We wanted to provide our comments on the proposed changes to the Park Mobile parking system. After several years
of careful consideration the city council and staff arrived at a very workable solution to satisfy hikers and residents. The
Park Mobile app system works well and achieved our collective goals to balance community, visitors and residents
needs.
>
> Bridget walks in the Crest/Crenshaw area 7 days a week. She never hears hikers who are walking from the free parking
areas complain about walking to the trails. We also never read about anyone complaining on the Nextdoor app.
>
> People who want to park very close to Burma Trail pay for closer access to the trailhead. People who want to park
free, know the locations for free parking and utilize them. If there are some visitors that don't know this then they need
to be educated about it as I see you are doing in some of your responses to letters you have been sent.
> Parking in the free parking areas adds 5 minutes onto their hike and keeps our neighborhood quiet and the road to our
homes safer. These are facts, why would we consider a change? Further, in reviewing Exhibit 0-1 of the Staff Bulletin,
there were only 23 comments regarding parking citations over a period of one year, or two per month. Given the
1
1
number of people who visit the trails, this number tells us that the vast majority of people who access the trails and
utilize the Park Mobile system are satisfied with the present protocol.
>
> Yesterday morning on a beautiful Sunday as we drove down Crenshaw at 10:30 a.m. there were quite a few cars
parked on Crest and Crenshaw north of Crest and there was still plenty of free parking available. By 1:30 p.m. most of
the free parking was available. We use this section of Crenshaw every day and never see all of the free parking spots
filled up, which tells us that the present system is working very well!
>
> Please remember that prior to the implementation of the Park Mobile system, all day long hundreds of cars circled
around and around Park Place and Crenshaw south of Crest because drivers were looking for the closest place to park. It
was an ordeal for those of us who live in the Del Cerro and Island View communities, Burrell Lane, Park Place and Valley
View Road. If the Park Mobile system is modified to "on demand" or "free", our communities will return to the terrible
traffic situation we experienced before implementation of the present protocol. Hikers now know that they have to pay
to park close and if they want a free place to park there's plenty available on Crest and Crenshaw north of Crest, so they
do not continually circle around looking for the closest place to park and our streets and communities are safer.
>
> The city council and your staff has worked very hard for years to figure out a system that works, you have found it,
please leave it as it is.
> Many people will be moving into the large apartment complex on Crenshaw and Lomita and I'm sure they will find
their way to Burma Trail. The system needs to remain unchanged.
>
> Lastly, it seems to us that if you survey visitors who have no idea why the parking system was put in place, all of the
feedback responses will be negative and respondents will respond in favor of on-demand and/or free parking.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Bridget and John Stillo
> Island View
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, October 3, 2022 8:18 PM
CityClerk
Fw: PV Nature Preserve Parking feedback
From: Kathy Christie <kmariechristie@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 7:22 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: PV Nature Preserve Parking feedback
·-·----·---------·----------------------------------------
1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.·
L-··=~~--~·-· .. ,--~-,.---------------~----------------------------
H.,
I.
Thank you so much for all you do, and for trying to help maintain a safe and peaceful atmosphere in our community.
Unfortunately, the strict rules surrounding parking at the PV Nature Preserve go too far. My husband, friends and I used
to walk there regularly, and even had a car pass to do so, but ever since the increased restrictions went into place we
have not visited the preserve. We have found the restrictions to be confusing, and we also don't always plan ahead
when we want to walk there, so we don't know ahead of time when we need to make a reservation for.
After the recent city council candidate forum at Hesse Park, some neighbors and I were talking about it, and my
neighbors have had a similar experience. None of them have visited Del Cerro Park or the preserve since the increased
restrictions went into place.
A city park should be accessible to everyone, and most certainly to people who live in the city. This is personally
frustrating to us, as my husband and his first (late) wife gave enough money to the preserve to be listed on a plaque
there. They intended that their donation be used to maintain a public space that everyone could enjoy. It is sad that the
preserve no longer achieves that goal.
I'm glad that you have listened to what the people who live in the Del Cerro Park neighborhood have said, but I hope
you consider that many others in our community are very frustrated by the current situation. This park and the preserve
belong to everyone, not just the people who live near it.
-Kathy
Kathy Christie
6851 Faircove Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes
818.383.9283
l
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Le
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, October 4, 2022 7:22 AM
CityClerk
Re: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)
From: Kim Lindsey <kimlindseyphd@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 8:33 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Al Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com>
Subject: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)
f G-1.UTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. l.·-w~-•~-•-~-~--~•--------------------------•-------------------------
Re: Proposed Changes to Crenshaw Blv Parking Reservation System
Dear City Council Members,
I want to thank each of you for having gifted the residents of Del Cerro with a safe passage in and out of our homes. The Reserved
Parking system has provided us with one less heavy stressor at the beginning and end of our days in these difficult times.
I've recently read one of the proposed modifications to the current Reserved Parking system. Unfortunately, the "first come first
served" option would basically transport us back to the nightmare we lived prior to the very welcome Reserved Parking. The
proposed change would encourage constant traffic cruising to the end of Crenshaw to see if there are any parking availabilities,
making U turns in the street obstructing traffic, waiting to see if people will be returning, following people walking back from the
preserve and stopping in the middle of the road to ask them if they are parked in the metered parking, and if so, often necessitating
yet another U turn followed by double parking to wait for them to leave. The "first come first served" option would mean there are no
longer fixed time slots, and no one would know when to expect vacancies. All this would again make our ONLY ingress and egress
for Del Cerro unsafe, stressful and problematic.
I understand perhaps the major concern is that the current parking system is not paying for itself. Certainly this is an important
consideration given a tight budget.
One option would be to remove the metered parking altogether and make the Crenshaw area south of Crest a "no parking" zone.
have heard non residents complain that they would prefer to park at the very entrance to the preserve (indeed suggesting we "pave
paradise and put up a parking lot" at Del Cerro Park). I would suggest to them that they can park at City Hall if they consider this
problem. But I'd also suggest that adding a few minutes walk at the beginning and end of a hike along a non challenging route with
open and beautiful ocean views is the perfect way to warm up and cool down. Certainly if people are coming to the Nature Preserve
for exercise this should not be an issue. There is still plenty of parking available for all who wish to enjoy the Preserve, and this
option would protect the residents of the three communities who must enter and exit their homes via this stretch of Crenshaw. This
option would also greatly diminish the need for adding enforcement personnel as no education and training is needed for "red
line/no parking", providing additional savings to the city. It's perhaps the simplest and most cost effective solution for the city, while
protecting their residents.
Thank you for your consideration. We appreciate your many hours of hard work in addressing the safety and tranquility of your
constituents who have been so negatively impacted in the past by the huge increase in visitors to our beautiful city and Preserve.
Respectfully,
Kim Lindsey
Del Cerro Resident
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Le
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, October 4, 2022 11 :23 AM
CityClerk
Fw: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)
From: davidandcindy seo <davidandcindy_seo@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2022 8:22 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)
/ CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City ofRancho Palos Verdes. ---------------------
To the RPV City Council:
I support the Following comments made by Del Cerro HOA. We have been a resident of RPV since 1994. We support
our City and our HOA.
• The current parking system is working effectively. Traffic can safely pass through the Crenshaw corridor.
• We support the staff's recommendations that they take the next 6 months to survey visitors to better understand
visitors' challenges with the current ParkMobile system and to find ways to mitigate them without returning the area to
the unsafe traffic conditions that we experienced prior to the parking system implementation. We stand ready to
continue working collaboratively with Staff to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of various options.
• Residents feel it is imperative to install the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail gates before implementing any
modification to the parking reservation system that will increase visitor traffic .
., In addition, adequate enforcement personnel must be hired and trained before any modification to the parking
system that will increase visitor traffic is implemented.
Cindy Chu
5 Amber Sky DRive
Rancho palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-408-4124
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
le
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, October 4, 2022 12:01 PM
CityClerk
FW: City Council Meeting 10/4/22
Ltr to City Council 10.04.22.pdf
Teresa Takaoka
City Clerk
te rit(w rpvca .gov
Phone -(310) 544-5217
Address:
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
.... GIITITON
~ Google Pl<IY
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. Appointments are strongly encouraged, and
virtual appointments are available. Many services are available online, including plan check review
s:c;_cj_ces. To schedule an appointment, visit the Staff Directory on the City website to find the appropriate
department. Same employees may be working remotely. Please be patient with us as there may be delays
Or' minor inconveniences in responding to your inquiry.
From: Maria Antolos <maria@johngirardilaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 11:57 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: JOHN A. GIRARDI <john@johngirardilaw.com>; 'Denise Girardi' <dhgirardi@cox.net>
Subject: City Council Meeting 10/4/22
i" ··----··" .
I CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Members of the Council:
Please see the attached correspondence regarding the parking system on Crenshaw Boulevard south of
Crest Road.
1\Jaria Antolos, ,\ssistant to
JOHN A. GIRARDI
La,v Offices of.John Gitardi
29900 Ha\vthorne Blvd.
Rolling H.ills Estates, CA 90274
1
1
Tel: (310) 265-5787
2
Via Email Only
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City Council
1 l r~-J· Jo 1n 01rarcu
October 4, 2022
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Parking System on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Road
Members of the City Council:
Our home is located immediately south of Del Cerro Park at the
intersection of Burrell Lane and the Burma Road extension of Crenshaw and
the start of the Preserve Trail. We are members of the Palos Verdes Park
Place Homeowner's Association.
I understand that other members of the community from Del Cerro
and Island View have weighed in but I did wish to emphasize one issue that
was favorably addressed by the Reserved Parking Program.
While there may be concerns about the impact on the ambience in this
area of Rancho Palos Verdes, a greater concern is pedestrian and vehicle
safety. With the unfettered parking on Crenshaw there were many who
simply double parked and waited for an open space or proceeded slowly such
that they would impede the traffic on Crenshaw otherwise entitled to travel at
the 40-m.p.h. speed limit. It was also not uncommon to sec vehicles either
northbound or southbound make mid-block U-turns frequently done ignoring
through traffic. The situation also vastly increased the number of U-turns at
Crenshaw and Park Place as well as at the end of Burma Road.
These traffic issues were resolved by the current system.
While the cost of the Reserved Parking Program to the City is
appreciated, we would concur with the suggestions that after the placement
of gates at the Burma Road and Rattlesnake trailheads that a survey of use
and need be performed. In any case, it would appear as though some
component of the reservation system remain in place to provide the safest
environment for residents and visitors.
Respectfully submitted,
q~JJ~~
John & Denise Girardi
Enyssa Momoli
To: Teresa Takaoka
Subject: RE: Preserve Visitor Survey
From: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 12:51 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Preserve Visitor Survey
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
City Clerk
1erit@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5217
Address:
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
:)1\~'<c111ln3t:icn 1 CJ1sti-ib1Jtl('!l; U!' copy:nq
rv)t:ify u-v:
111ii,;;. GETITOH
fll:'!":~lePlay
City Holl is open to the public during regular business hours. Appointments are strongly encouraged, and
virtual appointments ore available. Many services ore available online, including pion check review
s_erviccs. To schedule an appointment, visit the 5-t!}ff Directorv on the City website to find the appropriate
cleportrnent. Some employees may be working remotely. Please be patient with us as there may be delays
or minor inconveniences in responding to your inquiry.
From: Al and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 4:02 PM
To: Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <l<atieL@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Preserve Visitor Survey
t_cAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verd.es;
Hi Dan and Katie,
Attached are Del Cerro HOA's suggestions for survey questions and format. Many of the questions are very
similar to Staff's questions, with some added specificity to help assure that visitors address our areas of
concern.
1
2.
Thank you for your consideration of our suggestions.
Kathy Edgerton
2
Visitor Survey
1. How often do you visit the Preserve and/or Del Cerro Park? Please write the number of times and
circle whether the number is per week, per month, or per year:
During weekdays: __ times per [week] [month] [year]
During weekends and holidays: __ times per [week] [month] [year]
2. What is the zip code of your primary residence: __ _
3. During your visits to the preserve or park over the past year, approximately what percentage of your
time do you spend on the activities listed below?
a. Hiking --%
b. Biking --%
C. Dog walking --%
d. Brief sightseeing trip --%
e. Taking sunset photos % --
f. Other: % --
Total of all visits 100 %
4. Where did you park today?
a. In the reserved parking area on Crenshaw south of Crest Road
b. In the parking lot at Del Cerro Park
c. In the free area on Crest Road or Crenshaw north of Crest (i.e., the downhill portion)
d. Other (please specify): ----
5. How did you initially find out about the parking reservation system?
6. In the past six months, approximately how many times have you booked a reservation using the on-
line parking reservation system?
a. Never
b. Once
c. Between 2 and 5 times
d. More than 5 times
7. How long do you plan to use the park or preserve today? __ hours
8. Over the past six months, what has been the typical duration of your stay in the park or preserve?
__ hours
9. If you are aware of the reserved parking but don't regularly park in those spots, what are the
reason(s) in rank priority order (1 = the most important reason, 2 = next most important, etc.)
Rank (1-4)
Too costly
Requirement to make reservation at least one hour ahead of next reservation time block
Reservation time blocks too long, too short, or at inconvenient times
Other reason (please specify): ________ _
10. What changes would you suggest to improve the ease of using the parking reservation system and to
increase your use of the parking reservation system?
11. Are you aware that there are other preserve entrances that provide free parking? Have you visited
any of those entrances? If so, was your visit enjoyable?
Note: The following information will be gathered from parking system records and/or trail counters to
help validate survey results:
• Numbers of parked vehicles in each parking zone (with and without reservation)
• Duration of each visit (with and without reservation)
• Days and times of visitation (with and without reservation)
• Number of cars arriving and leaving within 15 minutes (a proxy for people unaware of the
system)
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 5:17 PM
CityClerk To:
Subject: Fw: Western Avenue Projects
Le
From: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 4:22 PM
To: bsattler <bsattler@igc.org>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Western Avenue Projects
Dear Barbara,
In response to you questions, I offer the following:
1. Regarding Table 5: The listing of opportunity sites in Table 5 of the staff report was to provide a historical record
of the sites studied by Piasky Solutions. The study was commissioned to provide the necessary feasibility
analysis the City needed to determine the maximum number of housing units an existing commercial site can
accommodate (as part of a mix of commercial and residential or all residential) as a basis for determining the
number of housing units to be included in the housing site inventory to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 639 units among various income levels. A site studied by Piasky Solutions was
not a guarantee of being included in the Housing Element's site inventory.
The Terraces was not included in the Housing Element site inventory because this is a large, fully developed,
non-vacant, lively commercial center with numerous lease holders, which is also a primary shopping destination
for RPV residents. This makes it difficult to provide relevant factors that HCD would accept that support
redevelopment with a housing component in the next 8 years or inclusion in the Housing Element at this
time. However, this site can still be included in future mixed-used zoning overlay district to leave it open for
potential mixed use if that is what a developer would need in order to make it financially feasible to improve
and update the shopping center.
2. Regarding Figures 1 and 2: These figures are merely representative of the type of development that can occur
on a few specific parcels on Western Avenue with the establishment of a Mixed Use Overlay District (MUOD),
representing a combination of true mixed use (both commercial and residential, or all residential). The MUOD
would allow a property owner to maintain a commercial use or develop residential only or a mix of uses
(residential with another use, e.g., commercial, cultural, institutional, and/or industrial uses) on a site. The goal
is to foster economic growth by creating a more vibrant, walkable area and to allow developers opportunity to
find more economically feasible solutions in order to redevelop the area.
As the City considers the development of the M UOD, the details of the development and zoning parameters
area work in progress and may be specific to different zones or parcels based on the studies performed to
date. The City will be conducing a MUOD open house on Saturday, October 15 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the
Terraces Shopping Center (suite to be announced) to provide the community more information and to receive
input.
1
Best regards,
Ken Rukavina, PE
Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
From: bsattler <bsattler@igc.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2022 10:37 AM
To: Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Western Avenue Projects
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mr. Awwad and Mr. Rukavina,
Thank you for the informative status report regarding Western Avenue.
Questions regarding Table 5:
Please clarify the intention of listing the properties shown in Table 5 "Opportunity Sites
Identified by Piasky Solutions". Why are the properties listed in this Table not consistent with
properties included in the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element which was approved by the City
Council?
More specifically, why is the Terraces property (28821 S. Western Ave.) included in the table
showing 446 potential residential units? The Terraces property was not ultimately included in
the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element both because the viable existing commercial uses of that
property are important to the community and because concentrating an excessive number of
new residential units at that location would severely impact the adjacent residential
neighborhood as well as impacting traffic on Western Avenue.
Table 5 footnote #2 clarifies that the numbers shown in the table "were based on
redevelopment of housing only without any commercial uses on the parcel." Why then are
these numbers included in an evaluation of Mixed Use?
Questions regarding Figures 1 & 2 (page 12):
2
Figure 1 clearly states that the plan is for "2 Story Lofts Above Ground Floor Retail". Figure 2,
however, is labeled as "Activated Commercial Corner with Townhomes". What does that
mean? The graphic for Figure 1 shows structures labeled as "Condos" and unlabeled
structures which presumably would be the Townhomes. However, there is no indication of any
commercial element.
It is not clear what Mixed Use Zoning will entail. Will each individual parcel be required to
include both commercial and residential uses?
Thank you for your continuing efforts to address the challenges that the city is facing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Sattler
3
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Ken Rukavina
Tuesday, October 4, 2022 8:04 AM
Glenn Cornell
CC; CityClerk
Subject: RE: Western Avenue Improvement Project Report
Dear Glenn,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence.
Regards,
l<en Rukavina, PE
Director of Community Development
r~eµ.o••-'#
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
From: Glenn Cornell <gcornell6@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 10:05 PM
To: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Western Avenue Improvement Project Report
L .... _,. __ .. ,. CAUTION: This e_mail originated from ou;side of the City of Rancho palos Ve_rdes .. ,
----------Forwarded message---------
From: Glenn Cornell <gcornell6@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 10:02 PM
Subject: Western Avenue Improvement Project Report
To: <krukavina@rpvca.org>, Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ken Dyda <ken.dyda@rpvca.gov>, <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>, John Cruikshank
<john.cruikshank@rpvca.gov>, David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>, Eric Alegria <eric.alegria@rpvca.gov>,
Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
1
Messrs. Awwad and Rukavina:
Attached are comments that I would like to submit regarding the above-captioned report before the City Council
considers it on October 4.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (310) 831-3033 if you have any questions or would like to discuss them
further.
Thank you,
Glenn Cornell
2
Ramzi Awwad, Public Works Director
Ken Rukavina, Community Development
Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
2004 Velez Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
October 3, 2022
Re: Western Avenue Improvement Project Report
Messrs. Awwad and Rukavina:
As a long-time resident of Rolling Hills Riviera, a tract of homes that lies along Western Avenue, I
write to you about city staffs report regarding the Western Avenue Improvement Project [hereinafter
"Improvement Report"]. I do not write to argue that Western can't use some improvement. Far from it.
Nonetheless, there are parts of the Improvement Report which I hope you will question.
2013 Western Avenue Vision Plan. Page 9 of the Improvement Report states that our city adopted the
Western Avenue Vision Plan [hereinafter "Vision Plan"] in 2013 and goes on to suggest that now,
nearly 10 years later, it wishes to start implementing the plan. Staff is remembering the old Vision Plan
far more fondly than those of us who reviewed it in 2013. For example, the plan sought to promote
more foot traffic along Western, by re-positioning and re-orienting commercial structures there and
allowing them to be sited without any setback. The plan's boosters posited that such changes would
lure pedestrians to Western who could then window shop as they walked along it.
This fantasy suggested fundamental problems. Indeed, the plan appeared to have been drafted at the
behest of an altogether different city and modified ever so slightly before being marketed to Rancho
Palos Verdes. As those who live in the area well know, Western is not a side street on which people
leisurely stroll from one business to another. Rather, it is a heavily traveled corridor -one of only 4
which serve the Peninsula -with a considerable amount of truck traffic. It is noisy and somewhat dirty
and is likely to remain so. It is not especially pleasant to walk or ride a bike along; and few people do.
Such comments and many more were made when the Vision Plan was originally proposed. Contrary to
the statement appearing at page 9, I do not recall that the plan was adopted. In fact, it was roundly
criticized as being grossly out of step with Palos Verdes' particular needs. This memory is reinforced
by the simple fact that little has been done to effect the Vision Plan, despite ample time to do so.
Virtually nothing has changed since 2013 to improve the plan's appeal. I request that Councilmembers
do what their predecessors did in 2013 and have done ever since. Ignore it.
Table 5 and the Housing Element. Our city faces the prospect of finding sites over the next 8 years
for 647 new residential housing units. Initially, the city proposed permitting a high percentage of those
units along Western Avenue. Eastview residents objected. As a result, staff sought to distribute the
units more evenly throughout our city and submitted a follow-up proposal in July 2022 which the
community seems to have accepted.
This fact makes the appearance of Table 5 in the Improvement Report all the more puzzling. This
table, generated in 2021 by an outside consulting group, Piasky Solutions [hereinafter "Piasky"],
reports the presence of "opportunity sites" capable of accommodating 1071 residential units in the city.
Table 5 fmiher reflects that 783 of these units (that is, nearly three-quarters of them) would be located
on Western Avenue. Far from improving Western, adopting Piasky would increase noise, di1i and
congestion along this already-busy street. What's more, Piasky is at odds with the current Housing
Element recommendations, in which city staff and this council have invested so much time and effort.
All in all, it is not clear why Table 5 or any reference to Piasky was even included in this report.
Accordingly, I ask Councilmembers to disregard them in their deliberations about improving Western
Avenue.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Glenn Cornell
u"'o L,
CITYOF "J!
10 73 2 01-'
TO:
~,,, .-,
"'
~1RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FROM:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2022
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, October 4, 2022, City Council meeting :
Item No. Description of Material
Public Comment Email from Kevin Yourman
2 Emails from Kevin Yourman; Virginia Powell; Mark Goldberg; Adam
Walch ; John & Ingrid Hextall; Lance Moyer; Myrna Levy; Hongpyo &
Julie Lee; Mark & Mei Martin; Mary Stuart; Bedi Singh; Lance Moyer;
Bharathi Singh; Lynda Heran; Donna Hulbert; Rick & Lori Daniels; Mett
Walch; Bridget & John Stillo; Del Cerro HOA Board; Ryan Kilcullen;
Barry Rodgveller; and Wouter & Kim van Biene .
3 Email from Barbara Sattler
4 Attachment A (Signed Version)
Respectfully submitted ,
OivyJ~~~
Teresa Takaoka
L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\2022120 22 Coversheets \20221004 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday .docx
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Saturday, October 1, 2022 10:49 PM
CityClerk
Subject: Fw: Agenda and staff reports for October 4, 2022
Le
From: Kevin Yourman <kevin.yourman@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2022 6:20 PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Agenda and staff reports for October 4, 2022
Teri,
Is Council aware that they are holding a meeting on the evening of Yorn Kippur? I will not be able to attend. I
would like it to be known that this should not happen as there are a number of residents of the Jewish faith in
RPV who cannot attend, listen or comment due to this being the holiest day of their faith.
I did not see how to provide written comments,
Please let Council be aware that I think it is unwise to change any of the conditions connected to the preserve
parking at Del Cerro at this time. At the very least, the parking policy should not be changed for Fri -Sun and
holidays.
Thank you
Kevin Yourman
From: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:00 PM
To: Michele Carbone <carbone4rpvcc@gmail.com>; Paul Seo <paulseo66@gmail.com>; Kevin Yourman
<kevin.yourman@rpvca.gov>; Elect Perestam <steve@electperestam.com>
Subject: Agenda and staff reports for October 4, 2022
Good Evening Candidates,
The agendas and staff reports for Tuesday, October 4, 2022, are available on the City's website for viewing.
You can find the agendas in their entirety at this location on our website: http://www.rpvca.gov/772/City-Meeting-
Video-and-Agendas .
Thank you.
1
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2022 1 :42 PM
CityClerk To:
Subject: Fw: Parking on Crenshaw
Late corr
From: jeanpwl@verizon.net <jeanpwl@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2022 1:41 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: alnkathye@msn.com <alnkathye@msn.com>
Subject: Parking on Crenshaw
! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
'.-,···~-·,--··••-0"'"--~---···-·-·-----' --·---~-~--~----·-------------------
Why would City Council want to modify the parking on Crenshaw.
The old system was dangerous and inconvenient for us living in
Del Cerro.
• The current parking system is working effectively. Traffic can safely pass through the
Crenshaw corridor .
•
.. We support the staff's recommendations that they take the next 6 months to survey
visitors to better understand visitors' challenges with the current ParkMobile system
and to find ways to mitigate them without returning the area to the unsafe traffic
conditions that we experienced prior to the parking system implementation. We stand
ready to continue working collaboratively with Staff to evaluate the feasibility and
effectiveness of various options.
o Residents feel it is imperative to install the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail gates before
implementing any modification to the parking reservation system that will increase visitor
traffic.
o In addition, adequate enforcement personnel must be hired and trained before any
modification to the parking system that will increase visitor traffic is implemented.
Virginia Powell
20 Oceanaire Drive
RPV, ca 90275
Resident of Del Cerro
1
2.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Saturday, October 1, 2022 10:47 PM
CityClerk
Fw: ltem#2 park mobile parking system
From: MARK GOLDBERG <mark.goldberg2@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2022 8:45 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: ltem#2 park mobile parking system
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I am a resident of Del Cerro. I support the Del cerro HOA suggested recommendations
to resolve the problem with the current situation. The problem and solution requires
some study of why it is not working properly. "Don't just do something ,stand there."
Mark Goldberg
1
2.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Le
Teresa Takaoka
Saturday, October 1, 2022 10:49 PM
CityC\erk
Re: Parking Reservation System: Del Cerro Park/Crenshaw Blvd
From: Adam Walch <adammwalch@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2022 7:41 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Parking Reservation System: Del Cerro Park/Crenshaw Blvd
r--·-, ·.· , . , i CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
,, ___ ,,,,,_,, .•. , .. ,,, ,.-,. ····-·-·-··· --------------------------------------
City Council:
I wanted to formally register my concerns prior to your October 4 meeting to discuss furthering the parking reservation
system. As a PV native and Del Cerro resident, I wish to commend the city on its current reservation system. It has been
working marvelously and addresses all of our previous concerns adequately. I would only suggest two alterations: A
functioning gate at the head of the Burma Rd. trail is imperative, and increased patrol and monitoring by enforcement
personnel would be appreciated. Most importantly though, the current system of reservations has functioned
exceptionally well, and it would be a real mistake to alter it.
Thank you for all your fine work, and for the implementation of this system.
Adam Walch
1
2.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Le
Teresa Takaoka
Saturday, October 1, 2022 10:55 PM
CityClerk
Fw: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)
RPV Council Letter October 1 2022.pdf
From: John Hextall <john.hextall@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2022 7:31 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ingrid Hextall <lngrid.hextall@gmail.com>
Subject: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)
: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I
Dear RPV City Council Members,
We are pleased to enclose our letter expressing our concerns and observations regarding Oct. 4 th City Council
Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMobile Parking System).
Kind regards,
John & Ingrid Hextall
John S. Hextali
7 Amber Sky Drive.
Roncho l"alos Verdes,
CA 90275
USA
Mobile: + l-3 l 0-561-2435
1
1.
Attention: Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
October l't, 2022
Dear City Council Members,
John & Ingrid Hextall
7 Amber Sky Drive,
Rancho Palos Verdes,
CA 90275
RE: OCT 4 th CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)
We refer to the above-mentioned agenda item #2 and wish to emphasize and support the
recommendations made by the Del Cerro residents via our HOA which we believe are more than
reasonable and entirely appropriate in these circumstances.
As residents of Del Cerro and having our home adjacent to the Burma Trail head we are naturally
concerned at the focus of RPV Council Members on changing the parking system without any r·egard for
prioritizing the re-installation of the Burma Road Gate before changing the parking system. The Burma
Rd., gate was approved in July 2018, installed in November 2020 but has been inoperable since the May
2021. It is incredulous that its replacement/repairs have not been prioritized and completed after a
period of 17 months.
The need for this Gates was established long before traffic and parking conditions became untenable in
the early days of the pandemic. They are intended to keep visitors from roaming the preserve at night
after the preserve is closed and entering before the preserve opening time of 7 am, causing concerns
about the safety of residents and loss of peace and quiet during night-time and early-morning hours.
Thus, in the absence of the Burma Rd Trailhead Gate, we continue to encounter excessive noise from
walkers who clearly ignore the opening times and walk /jog in darkness from as early as 5 am.
They play loud music, shout to their colleagues and have complete disregard for neighbors adjoining the
Burma Trail. Moreover, in the evening, outside of the prohibited hours, several hikers and groups
consistently enter the Burma Trailhead as there is nothing to prevent access after dusk and they also
smoke cannabis, drink alcohol and cause undue noise and potential danger to the environment. The
increasing issues with homelessness and the risks of fire are enormous concerns for the Del Cerro
residents.
With regards to agenda item #2 (ParkMobile Parking System), we believe the current parking system is
working effectively. Traffic can safely pass through the Crenshaw corridor. We also support the Staff's
recommendations that they take the next 6 months to survey visitors to better understand visitors'
challenges with the current ParkMobile system and to find ways to mitigate them without returning the
area to the unsafe traffic conditions that we experienced prior to the parking system implementation. As
earlier stated, we feel it is imperative to install the Burma Rd. Trail gate before implementing any
modification to the parking reservation system that will further increase visitor traffic. Finally, adequate
enforcement personnel must be hired and trained before any modification to the parking system that
will increase visitor traffic is implemented.
1
John & Ingrid Hextall
7 Amber Sky Drive,
Rancho Palos Verdes,
CA 90275
We thank you in anticipation for considering our feedback and listening to our genuine concerns.
Sincerely,
John & Ingrid Hextall
2
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Sunday, October 2, 2022 8:22 PM
CityClerk
Subject: Fw: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMoblie Parking System)
Le
From: Lance Moyer <lanceandrewmoyer@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2022 5:52 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMoblie Parking System)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Oct. 2, 2022
Dear City Council,
As a resident of the Del Cerro neighborhood, I wish to thank you for working with our HOA to
help eliminate the traffic hazards (double parking and the U-turns) that I've experienced prior
to the parking reservation system. The reservation system has reduced those hazards
significantly and I'm worried that by switching to a "parking on demand" model, myself and my
neighbors will once again have to deal with unsafe conditions entering our community.
Currently, it's recommended that "on demand" parking be kept at the $10.35 rate for 3 hours.
However, if this recommendation does not meet the City's goal, will the rate and/or the
amount of time to park be lowered? If so, these changes will only increase the number of
drivers double parking and/or making U-turns while trying to find a space as close to the Burma Trail entrance as
possible.
I hope the Council will approve the staff's recommendations to install the Burma and
Rattlesnake gates before making a commitment to study the feasibility of an "on demand"
system. Our community has experienced close encounters with fire, leaving the preserve open
24 hours only increases the chances of another. We've waited patiently for the gates to be
completed, their installation is paramount to keeping our neighborhood safe.
Thank you for listening to my concerns.
Sincerely,
Lance Moyer
26 Oceanaire Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
1
l.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Late corr I think .. park mobile ..
Teresa Takaoka
Sunday, October 2, 2022 8:22 PM
CityClerk
Katie Lozano
Fw: Crenshaw
From: Myrna Levy <melrpv@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2022 6:16 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Crenshaw
! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. ------------------
It has been such a relief not to have to deal with the rude and unthinking walkers and
drivers that have disrupted the entrance to the Trails.
For years we had to put up with their rudeness, liter and in general lack of
consideration to the residents of Del Cerro.
we have paid taxes and many of us have contributed to the creation of the trails.
Please consider our rights and neighborhood.
sincerely
Myrna Levy
20 crestwind Dr.
RPV
1
1.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Sunday, October 2, 2022 8:24 PM
CityClerk
Fw: changing Crenshaw Blvd parking to a parking-on-demand (first come, first served)
system
From: Hongpyo Lee <hphlee@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2022 3:37 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: changing Crenshaw Blvd parking to a parking-on-demand (first come, first served) system
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
··---··-····-----·---·---------------
To dear city Staff and Council members,
We heard city is considering to eliminate the current requirement for visitors to obtain one-hour advanced
reservations and change to a parking-on-demand system
However, we consider the current advanced reservations requirement to be the single most important aspect
of the system that prevents the unsafe traffic conditions that the neighborhood was experiencing before the
system was implemented -including visitors impeding traffic while waiting for parking spaces to become
available, backing up unsafely to get a parking space, and making unsafe U-turns to get to a parking space
farther from the trailheads or to leave the area.
The current one-hour advanced reservation requirement discourages visitors from driving to the end of
Crenshaw looking for an open space and, instead, encourages them to go straight to a free parking area that
doesn't require reservations.
The one hour time may be reduced down 30 minutes, but again, the advanced reservation requirement
should be kept for above reason.
Sincerely
Hongpyo and Julie Lee
9 Amber Sky Dr. RPV
1
1.
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Sunday, October 2, 2022 8:24 PM
CityClerk
Subject: Fw: October 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (Park Mobile Parking System)
Late corr
From: Mark Martin <purplezebra796@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2022 10:19 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: alnkathye@msn com <alnkathye@msn.com>
Subject: October 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (Park Mobile Parking System)
I CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
' .. "···~---~-····--·~-------------·-·•--,-,,~~-----~-~--q--····-----------
To: RPV City Council
As Del Cerro residents and frequent hikers, we are extremely pleased that that the current parking system at the end of
Crenshaw has eliminated the hazardous chaotic parking situation that existed previously.
At the same time, we believe the details of the Park Mobile system are awkward and discourage reasonable levels of
parking, and that small changes to the details can significantly increase usage of pay parking.
A well-crafted survey of users seems the fastest way to determine the optimum Park Mobile configuration.
We assume everybody wants to avoid returning to the daily chaos and borderline road-rage that existed prior to
implementing the present parking controls.
Thank you for your time and efforts,
-Mark & Mei
20 Coveview
1
1.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Sunday, October 2, 2022 10:32 PM
CityClerk
Re: OCT 4th CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)
From: Mary Stuart <mary@digiscope.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2022 9:54 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Mary Stuart <mary@digiscope.com>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro
<ba rbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>
Subject: OCT 4th CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Oct. 2 nd , 2022
RE: OCT 4th CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM #2 {ParkMobile Parking System)
Dear City Council,
As a resident of the Del Cerro since l 967, I appreciate the efforts the Council has made to reduce the traffic on Crenshaw
Blvd south of Crest Road. The implementation of the ParkMobile reservation system has been an enormous improvement
in mitigating the horrible traffic while improving safety for nearby residents as well as visitors to the Po1iuguese Bend
Reserve.
As we are all aware, this area on Crenshaw was never intended to be the primary parking area for the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve. Years ago, our community approved the Land Conservancy and City's plan to provide parking access at
Gateway on Palos Verdes Drive South. Many, including my family, provided funds for the purchase of the land with this
parking plan in mind. It is my sincere hope that future Council members will revisit Gateway and make it the primary
entrance once envisioned with restrooms, picnic tables, posted trail routes and a nature conservation information center.
I'm opposed to any motion to replace our current reservation parking system with On Demand Parking without a more
comprehensive understanding of its impact on our community. The Staffs recommendation to survey visitors will help
and I fully support that effort.
I also would like to know why the council feels the need to replace the current system. This has never been clear to me. If
the reason is monetary then I'm concerned that the On Demand System could ultimately be modified to ensure maximum
return by lowering the rate and allowing visitors to park for any amount of time they'd need. What we're left with is a
digital system akin to parking meters. This is the "slippery slope", that would return us to the unsafe conditions that once
existed. The conditions that you and the Staff have so successfully mitigated over the past years.
I also agree with Staffs recommendation that no change to the reservation system should be considered until the Burma
Trail and Rattlesnake Trail gates are completed. If safety for residents and visitors is Council's main concern, then the
gates are a priority. Quite frankly, it's incomprehensible that since May 2021 we've been waiting for their installation.
Thank you for listening!
1
2
Mary Stuart
6 Amber Sky Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
2
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 9:35 AM
CityClerk To:
Subject: Re: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)
Le
From: bedi singh <bedisingh@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 9:28 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)
,--.-----------~-~-~·-·----------------------------------------! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Council
Please see my comments below regarding Crenshaw Parking. I am a Del Cerro Resident at 7 Coveview Drive.
• The current parking system is working effectively. Traffic can safely pass through the Crenshaw
corridor .
•
• I support the staff's recommendations that they take the next 6 months to survey visitors to better
understand visitors' challenges with the current ParkMobile system and to find ways to mitigate
them without returning the area to the unsafe traffic conditions that we experienced prior to the
parking system implementation. We stand ready to continue working collaboratively with Staff to
evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of various options.
• Residents feel it is imperative to install the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail gates before
implementing any modification to the parking reservation system that will increase visitor traffic.
• In addition, adequate enforcement personnel must be hired and trained before any modification to
the parking system that will increase visitor traffic is implemented.
Thank you
Bedi Singh
Sent from my iPhone
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Le
Teresa Takaoka
Sunday, October 2, 2022 8:22 PM
CityClerk
Fw: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMoblie Parking System)
Follow up
Completed
From: Lance Moyer <lanceandrewmoyer@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2022 5:52 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMoblie Parking System)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Oct. 2, 2022
Dear City Council,
As a resident of the Del Cerro neighborhood, I wish to thank you for working with our HOA to
help eliminate the traffic hazards (double parking and the U-turns) that I've experienced prior
to the parking reservation system. The reservation system has reduced those hazards
significantly and I'm worried that by switching to a "parking on demand" model, myself and my
neighbors will once again have to deal with unsafe conditions entering our community.
Currently, it's recommended that "on demand" parking be kept at the $10.35 rate for 3 hours.
However, if this recommendation does not meet the City's goal, will the rate and/or the
amount of time to park be lowered? If so, these changes will only increase the number of
drivers double parking and/or making U-turns while trying to find a space as close to the Burma Trail entrance as
possible.
I hope the Council will approve the staff's recommendations to install the Burma and
Rattlesnake gates before making a commitment to study the feasibility of an "on demand"
system. Our community has experienced close encounters with fire, leaving the preserve open
24 hours only increases the chances of another. We've waited patiently for the gates to be
completed, their installation is paramount to keeping our neighborhood safe.
Thank you for listening to my concerns.
Sincerely,
Lance Moyer
26 Oceanaire Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
1
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 9:49 AM
Enyssa Momoli To:
Subject: Fw: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)
Le
From: bharathi singh <nisharjun2003@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 9:35 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)
! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. !oc<•a.,wm•m••~•~•-•~-~~•---~•••~m==,-•>Om----¥••~•---------------------------------
Dear City Council
Please see my comments below regarding Crenshaw Parking. I am a Del Cerro Resident at 7 Coveview Drive.
• The current parking system is working effectively. Traffic can safely pass through the Crenshaw
corridor .
•
• I support the staff's recommendations that they take the next 6 months to survey visitors to better
understand visitors' challenges with the current ParkMobile system and to find ways to mitigate
them without returning the area to the unsafe traffic conditions that we experienced prior to the
parking system implementation. We stand ready to continue working collaboratively with Staff to
evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of various options.
• Residents feel it is imperative to install the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail gates before
implementing any modification to the parking reservation system that will increase visitor traffic.
• In addition, adequate enforcement personnel must be hired and trained before any modification to
the parking system that will increase visitor traffic is implemented.
Thank you
yours sincerely,
Bharathi Singh
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Le
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, October 3, 2022 12:41 PM
CityClerk
Fw: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)
From: Lynda Heran <lyndaheran@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 12:27 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)
To Members of the RPV City Council:
I am a resident of the Del Cerro neighborhood. I feel that the current parking system is working to alleviate the excess
traffic through the Crenshaw corridor into Del Cerro.
I support staff's recommendations that the Council takes 6 months to survey visitors to the preserve to better
understand the challenges with the current ParkMobile system and to find ways to mitigate them without returning the
area to the unsafe traffic conditions that we experienced prior to the parking system implementation.
I also feel that it is imperative that the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail gates are installed prior to any parking
reservation modification.
Thank you,
Lynda Heran
16 Oceanaire Drive
(Del Cerro Resident)
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Le
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, October 3, 2022 12:41 PM
CityClerk
Fw: Parking on Crenshaw past Crest
From: donna thehulberts.com <donna@thehulberts.com>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 11:57 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Parking on Crenshaw past Crest
' .. ' ·······-······---···-----------------------·----------------------i CAUTIOf\J: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
·····•·-••······"·"•'••·····-.. -----····--------·---------·---···············-··
Good morning.
I have lived in Del Cerro for many years and am familiar with the parking situation since the parking reservation system
was instituted. I was surprised that more people were not willing to pay for the parking. It seems people would rather
walk further than pay for parking. It has been several months since the system was instituted and I don't think the
problem is because people forget or don't know to make reservations. There are many local people and return trail
users who are well aware of the system. I think it is more likely they don't want to pay the fee.
I am very concerned that eliminating the reservation system will result in the return of the problems it was designed to
eliminate. I think people will wait for a parking spot to open thereby blocking the street. I think they will make unsafe u
turns to get to a space that opens.
Perhaps more study is needed. I think encouraging rather than eliminating reservations is what has eradicated the
dangers that open parking created in that area. Perhaps lowering the parking rate would encourage reservation use. I
believe before the reservation system is eliminated every effort should be made to encourage the use, otherwise we are
just headed back to the conditions that created the problems.
Respectfully submitted
Donna Hulbert
1
l.
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, October 3, 2022 12:42 PM
CityClerk
Subject: Fw: Input to Oct 4, 2022 RPV Council Meeting, Agenda Item #2 (ParkMobile Parking
System)
From: Rick Daniels <rickdaniels314@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 11:26 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Lori Daniels <LorettaDaniels7@gmail.com>
Subject: Input to Oct 4, 2022 RPV Council Meeting, Agenda Item #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)
j C1~~2·10N: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho PalosVerdes.
----------------------------·-----·
To RPV Council Members,
We have been homeowners in Del Cerro for over 30 years and we have the following concerns about possible changes
to the current parking system on Crenshaw between Crest Road the the Preserve entrance to Burma Road:
• The current parking system is working well by: A) charging for parking which helps limit the number of cars since
many people seem to only want to hike if it is free, and B) By requiring visitors to plan ahead to make
reservations for parking, which eliminates dangerous crowding and U-turns on Crenshaw when
people double-park or hover while waiting for a space to open or dashing to get to a space when one opens
up.
• We would like to see RPV city staff survey visitors to better understand what (if any) issues there are with the
current parking approach (including the ParkMobile system).
• We recommend the city NOT change the current parking system until the survey results have been analyzed and
reviewed with the Del Cerro HOA to obtain input on any changes.
• Also before any parking changes are made, the gates at the entrances to the Burma Road and Rattlesnake trails
should be installed to control the hours of access to the preserve (which further relates to when people park
on Crenshaw).
• Finally, enforcement of parking regulations and hours of access to the preserve should be addressed if any
parking changes are made.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely, Rick & Lori Daniels (3 Amber Sky Drive)
1
l.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, October 3, 2022 1 :30 PM
CityClerk
Fw: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #2
From: M. Walch <unclemett@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 1:20 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Adam Walch <adammwalch@gmail.com>
Subject: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #2
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To Whom It May Concern:
The current parking system along Crenshaw Blvd. by del Cerro Park works remarkably smoothly, and I strongly urge
the Council not to try to fix something that isn't broken.
Thanks,
M. Walch
34 Oceanaire Dr.
Sent from Mail for Windows
1.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bridget Stillo <bnstillo@cox.net>
Monday, October 3, 2022 2:27 PM
CityClerk
Park Mobile parking system
! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Council Members,
We wanted to provide our comments on the proposed changes to
the Park Mo bile parking system. After several years of careful
consideration the city council and staff arrived at a very workable
solution to satisfy hikers and residents. The Park Mobile app
system works well and achieved our collective goals to balance
community, visitors and residents needs. Please do not change
the present methodologies of the parking system!
Bridget walks in the Crest/Crenshaw area 7 days a week. She
never hears hikers who are walking from the free parking areas
complain about walking to the trails. We also never read about
anyone complaining on the Nextdoor app.
People who want to park very close to Burma Trail pay for closer
access to the trailhead. People who want to park free, know the
locations for free parking and utilize them. If there are some
visitors that don't know this then they need to be educated about
it. Parking in the free parking areas adds 5 minutes onto their hike
. and keeps our neighborhood quiet and the road to our homes
safer. These are facts, why would you consider a change? Further,
in reviewing Exhibit D-1 of the Staff Bulletin, there were only 2 3
comments regarding parking citations over a period of one year,
or two per month. Given the number of people who visit the trails,
1
2.
this number tells me that the vast majority of people who access
the trails and utilize the Park Mobile system are satisfied with the
present protocol.
Yesterday morning on a beautiful Sunday as we drove down
Crenshaw at 10:30 a.m. there were quite a few cars parked on
Crest and Crenshaw north of Crest and there was still plenty of
free parking available. By 1:30 p.m. most of the free parking was
available. We use this section of Crenshaw every day and never
see all of the free parking spots filled up, which tells us that the
present system is working very well!
Please remember that prior to the implementation of the Park
Mobile system, all day long hundreds of cars circled around and
around Park Place and Crenshaw south of Crest because drivers
were looking for the closest place to park. It was an ordeal for
those of us who live in the Del Cerro and Island View communities,
Burrell Lane, Park Place and Valley View Road. If the Park Mobile
system is modified to "on demand" or "free", our communities will
return to the terrible traffic situation we experienced before
implementation of the present protocol. Hikers now know that
they have to pay to park close and if they want a free place to park
there's plenty available on Crest and Crenshaw north of Crest, so
they do not continually circle around looking for the closest place
to park and our streets and communities are safer.
The city council has worked very hard and for years to figure out a
system that works, you have found it, please leave it as it is. Many
people will be moving into the large apartment complex on
Crenshaw and Lomita and I'm sure they will find their way to
Burma Trail. The system needs to remain unchanged.
2
Lastly, it seems to us that if you survey visitors who have no idea
why the parking system was put in place, all of the feedback
responses will be negative and respondents will respond in favor
of on-demand and/or free parking.
Thank you for your time.
Bridget and John Stillo
Island View
3
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, October 3, 2022 3:34 PM
CityClerk
Fw: : October 4th City Council Meeting Agenda #2 -ParkMobile System
From: Al and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 3:24 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Ara
Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject:: October 4th City Council Meeting Agenda #2 -ParkMobile System
I CAUTION: This email originated from outside oft.he City of Rancho Palos Verdes. -------------------------
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
The Del Cerro HOA supports the Staff's recommendation that the City take the next 6 months to survey
visitors to better understand visitors' challenges with the current ParkMobile system and to find ways to
improve its use without returning the area to the unsafe traffic conditions that we experienced prior to the
current parking system implementation.
We understand the City's goal to achieve a balance between visitors' desires for more convenient parking
adjacent to the preserve and neighbors' need for a safe, quiet and peaceful quality of life. We also understand
the City's need to find a level of parking usage that covers the cost of the parking system.
Over the past month, we have been working with Staff to develop options that achieve the City's goals. We
have been searching for ways to increase usage incrementally in a controlled way.
However, we are finding that parking system limitations and a lack of understanding of the parameters that
are the main hindrances to usage are presenting challenges that we haven't yet overcome. We agree with
Staff's recommendation that any system changes should not be made until a visitor survey is completed to
better understand their concerns with the current system, and to determine why visitors are parking on Crest
Rd. and on Crenshaw north of Crest Rd. (rather than in the paid parking spaces). This would give us additional
information and time to evaluate additional less dramatic changes that directly address visitor concerns and to
develop better options that do not return the area to the unsafe traffic conditions we experienced before the
ParkMobile system was implemented.
The current parking reservation system is the only mitigation measure that is currently in place and that has
effectively improved traffic safety and restored peace and quiet to the neighborhood since the current effort
to improve traffic began in 2020. We feel it is imperative that the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail gates are
installed and that adequate parking enforcement personnel are hired and trained before implementing any
modification to the parking reservation system that will increase traffic.
We stand ready to continue working collaboratively with Staff to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of
various options.
1
1
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
The Del Cerro HOA Board:
Kathy Edgerton
Miriam and Pete Varend
Megan and Bob Moore
Dion Hatch
Irene and Brandon Lee
Gregory MacDonald
Mark Kernen
2
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 3:34 PM
CityClerk To:
Subject: Fw: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)"
From: Ryan Kilcullen <rkilcull@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 3:02 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)"
I CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. ------------------. --········"'''•
Hello and thank you for your service.
As a Del Cerro Resident we would like to make a few comments about the proposed changes to the Crenshaw Corridor
Parking:
• The most important item for any City is Public Safety and it has always been communicated by RPV
city council and staff that is our number one priority. The current parking system is working
effectively at addressing the past major safety issues that we as a neighborhood experienced years
ago. Traffic can safely pass through the Crenshaw corridor. By installing a system that would 'allow'
more cars to cross Crest and speed down Crenshaw to find a metered parking space would
completely contradict all of the efforts that have been made over the past years. We are RPV and
not a major metropolitan city.
• Not knowing the exact stats but there is sense that crime, specifically home invasions, burglary,
vehicle thefts are up in LA County and on the Peninsula. A modification to the current system would
increase traffic into our neighborhood with the potential of persons with criminal intents.
• What is the plan to Take the next 6 months to survey visitors to better understand visitors'
challenges with the current ParkMobile system and to find ways to mitigate them without returning
the area to the unsafe traffic conditions that we experienced prior to the parking system
implementation? It is a fairly straight forward app and payment system.
• Only 7% usage of park mobile be 25% is needed to cover costs?! People are cost savvy and are using
the free parking near SJF and north of Crest so proving they are willing to walk etc. for free parking.
So, just get rid of the meters and cost to the city and restrict the parking where the meters currently
are. The small amount of financial gain is not worth the life of a child on a bike, or a couple enjoying
a neighborhood walk. The public is proving its not needed and the free parking that is safer further
down is adequate!
• It is imperative to install the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail gates before implementing any
modification (Not desired) to the parking reservation system that will increase visitor traffic.
1
• I motion for no change or modification to the parking system.
Sincerely,
Del Cerro Resident
Kilcullen
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, October 3, 2022 3:34 PM
CityClerk
Fw: October 4 City Council Agenda Item #2
From: Barry Rodgveller <rodgfamily@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 2:14 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: October 4 City Council Agenda Item #2
~···----
1 CJ.\UTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I understand the City Council is considering a change in the way the
present park mobile system now operates on Crenshaw Blvd. The
prevailing rules, that are now in place, have been the single most
important feature in improving the traffic safety and overall security for
our community. Before a modification to the existing system is
considered, the gates at the main entrance to the Reserve
and Rattlesnake Trail need to be installed and in working order. We also
need to ensure that we have the personnel to educate visitors and
provide enforcement. I understand that the existing system does not pay
for itself but it must be remembered that this program was not designed
as a profit center but to provide community safety. There are many
features the city provides for our RPV community that don't provide a
profit or even pay for themselves. Whether this system pays for itself or
not should not be the primary consideration. It was put in place to afford
our community a safe place to live. A move to change puts us and the
visitors to the Reserve at risk. If the system is changed we will again have
the visitors double parked, backing up and making illegal U-turns while
waiting for an open parking space. This was dangerous for all involved. I
strongly believe that the present system should not be altered.
1
If the City Council still believes a change is necessary it should be
incremental. Perhaps, two days a week you could use a different parking
arrangement. Over several months you can then evaluate how this
alternative system, such as a park on demand model, impacts the
community. I believe a more stepwise, logical approach makes the most
sense and does not again put our community at risk. Thank you for your
consideration.
Barry Rodgveller
President, Palos Verdes Park Place, HOA
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, October 3, 2022 3:35 PM
CityClerk
Fw: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)
From: wouter@vanbiene.net <wouter@vanbiene.net>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 1:52 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Oct. 4th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #2 (ParkMobile Parking System)
i-····•········· --------------------------------------------
' CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. ------------------------
Dear RPV City Council members
As nearly 40 year residents of Del Cerro, we would like to brief you on the current status of the parking arrangements on
Crenshaw Blvd and Park Place.
Ever since the city implemented the current parking arrangements, the traffic situation on Crenshaw Blvd has been
excellent, reminding us on what we experienced prior to the establishment of the Nature Preserve.
The current arrangement has eliminated people from waiting in their cars (double or triple parked) and waiting for a
parking spot to open up and making fast double U turns to capture a space behind the location of the driver. These
double U turns were common and exceedingly dangerous as the drivers seemed to be blinded by the opportunity to
capture a parking spot that was being released. As frequent users of bikes on Crenshaw, riding that stretch of road was a
very tense affair as you never knew who would suddenly dash into a fast Uturn without noticing an incoming bike and its
rider.
As you are reviewing the current situation once again, let me stress that the concept of having to have a 'prior
reservation' is key and critical to avoid visitors double parking in the hope that a parking spot opens up.
So whatever you ultimately decide, I strongly recommend to keep that feature as part of the solution.
Best Regards
Wouter & Kim van Biene
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
From: bsattler <bsattler@igc.org>
Teresa Takaoka
Saturday, October 1, 2022 11 :32 AM
CityClerk
Fw: Western Avenue Projects
Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2022 10:37 AM
To: Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Western Avenue Projects
I . . , ,
! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mr. Awwad and Mr. Rukavina,
Thank you for the informative status report regarding Western Avenue.
Questions regarding Table 5:
Please clarify the intention of listing the properties shown in Table 5 "Opportunity Sites Identified by
Piasky Solutions". Why are the properties listed in this Table not consistent with properties included
in the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element which was approved by the City Council?
More specifically, why is the Terraces property (28821 S. Western Ave.) included in the table showing
446 potential residential units? The Terraces property was not ultimately included in the 6th Cycle
Draft Housing Element both because the viable existing commercial uses of that property are
important to the community and because concentrating an excessive number of new residential units
at that location would severely impact the adjacent residential neighborhood as well as impacting
traffic on Western Avenue.
Table 5 footnote #2 clarifies that the numbers shown in the table "were based on redevelopment of
housing only without any commercial uses on the parcel." Why then are these numbers included in
an evaluation of Mixed Use?
Questions regarding Figures 1 & 2 (page 12):
Figure 1 clearly states that the plan is for "2 Story Lofts Above Ground Floor Retail". Figure 2,
however, is labeled as "Activated Commercial Corner with Townhomes". What does that mean? The
graphic for Figure 1 shows structures labeled as "Condos" and unlabeled structures which
presumably would be the Townhomes. However, there is no indication of any commercial element.
It is not clear what Mixed Use Zoning will entail. Will each individual parcel be required to include
both commercial and residential uses?
Thank you for your continuing efforts to address the challenges that the city is facing.
1
3.
Sincerely,
Barbara Sattler
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hello,
Ramzi Awwad
Thursday, September 29, 2022 4:45 PM
CityClerk
Attachment to Staff Report for Chambers Amendment
Amendment No 2.pdf
Attached is an electronic copy of the signed version of Attachment A for the subject staff report. Please
let me know if you need anything else from me to issue this as late correspondence. Thanks.
Ramzi
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTUAL
SERVICES ("Amendment No. 2") by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
a municipal corporation ("City"), and CHAMBERS GROUP, INC., a California corporation
("Consultant") is effective as of October 4, 2022.
RECITALS
A. City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement for Contractual Services
dated May I 9, 2020 ("Agreement") in the amount of $265,718.50 whereby Consultant agreed to
provide environmental studies and produce environmental documents for the Portuguese Bend
Landslide Mitigation Project ("Project") with a term of one year, with the option to extend the term
for one additional year.
B. On May 19, 2021, City authorized an administrative extension of the term of the
Agreement for 180 days to November 14, 2021.
C. On November 19, 2021, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. I to the
Agreement, to extend the time for Consultant to complete the Project to November 30, 2022.
D. On February 7, 2022, Consultant requested a change order in the amount of
$21,859.50. The change order was executed showing the line items totaling $21,895.50; however,
the sum of the line items was actually $21,859.50. Therefore, the change order amount was
$21,859.50 and the Contract Sum was increased to $287,577.50. The City's Contract Officer
approved the change order, and as part of the Change Order, the Contract Officer negotiated an
earlier completion date of November 3, 2022.
E. On July 26, 2022, Consultant requested an additional change order in the amount
of $117,209 and a further time extension to complete the Project.
F. After reviewing the requested change order, City and Consultant have agreed that
Consultant will finalize the Technical Studies (Task 3 of the Agreement) and provide them to the
City who will separately contract with another environmental consultant who will complete the
Project's Environmental Documents (Tasks 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Agreement).
G. Therefore, the Contract Sum will be amended to a total not to exceed $244,977.50
as per Exhibit "C", which is inclusive of all amounts paid to date. The Technical Studies shall be
completed in accordance with Exhibit "D". The Parties agree that no further amendments or
change orders shall be permitted, and that the amended Scope of Work, Schedule of Compensation,
and Schedule of Performance supersede and replace the Scope of Work, Schedule of
Compensation, and Schedule of Performance in the Agreement.
TERMS
1. Contract Changes. The Agreement is amended as provided herein. Deleted text is
indicated in strikethrough and added text in hold italics.
a. Section 2.1, Contract Sum, is 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 exceyd
$265,718.50 (Two Hundred Sixty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Eighteen
Dollars and Fifty Cents)$244,977.50 (Two Hundl'ed Forty Four Thousand and
Nine Hundred and Seventy-Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents) (the "Contract
Sum"), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1.9.
b. Section 3.4, Term, is 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 July 31, 2022November 17, 2022, except as otherwise
provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit "D")."
c. Exhibit "A" Scope of Services, is superseded and replaced by Exhibit
"A" Scope of Services Amendment No. 2," attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
d. Exhibit "C" Schedule of Compensation, is superseded and replaced
by Exhibit "C" Schedule of Compensation Amendment No. 2, attached hereto and
incorporated by 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. I, whenever the term "Agt·eement" appears in the Agreement,
it shall mean the Agreement, as amended by Amendment Nos. 1 and 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
aris.ing 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
that, with the passing of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a material default
under the Agreement.
0 I 203.0006/813094.6
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 01· 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 patiies
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]
0 [203.0006/813094.6 -3-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date
and year first-above written.
ATTEST:
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
William W. Wynder, City Attorney
CITY:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
municipal corporation
David L. Bradley, Mayor
Name: lvl1keMcEntee
Title: COO /
/J/l/,//;f
By: 4_{:'ff>?p::>:--(
Name: Alex Gurrola·
Title: CEO/CFO
Address: 5 Hutton Center Dr., Suite 750
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Two corporate officer signnt111·cs 1·eq11il'ecl when Cons11ltnnt is n corporntion, with one signnture required from
,;>nch of the following groups: 1) Chnirmnn of the Board, President or any Vice President; nnd 2) Secretnry, nny
Assistant Secretary, Chief Financinl Officer 01· any Assistant Trensnre1·, CONSULTANT'S SIGNATURES
SI-IALL 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.
01203.0006/813094.6 -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 trnthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNTJ\
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
_,, . . . , \,',):\D\·q(j \Jub\i(. . _ ;\\V:: (;\u((ol~
On cV q .;fl '2022 before me, l/\1:,\·~;1 ~,,_,,1,,1 11~1 (.\ccnlu-1 personally appeared t'\,\i_e HcG,,ree. a Ad 'proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence to be the i;er;on(s) whose names(s) is/are subscdbed to the within instrument mid
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 oflhe State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true
and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
s· i 1-·,gnature: -*/_.,_'\ _____________ _
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAP A CITY CLAIIVIED BY SIGNER
0 lNDIVIDU;\L
0 CORPORATE OFFICER
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) 0
□ ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
LllvllTED
GENERAL □
□ □ □ □
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER ___________ _
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
01203.0006/813094,C,
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER or PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIONER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On , 2022 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 PENAL TY 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 A1TACHED DOCUMENT
□ INDIVIDUAL
□ CORPORA TE OFFICER
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
TITLE(S)
□ PARTNER(S) □ LIMITED
□ GENERAL NUMBER OF PAGES
□ ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
□ TRUSTEE(S)
□ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
□ OTHER DA TE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(lES)) SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
0 [203.0006/813094.6
EXHIBIT"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
AMENDMENT NO. 2
I. Consultant will perform the following services to complete the Initial Study
and Technical Studies in support of environmental documents for the
Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Project (Project) pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Project
consists of fracture sealing, drainage swales, and dewatering (hydraugers)
improvements in the Portuguese Bend Landslide area in an effort to
significantly reduce land movement {see Exhibit "A-1" for the geographic
outline of the project site). The Initial Study and Technical Studies will be
provided to the City's environmental consultant who will complete the
Environmental Impact Report.
01203.0006/8 l 3094.6
A. Task 1 Project Initiation -Task Completed
This task includes meeting with City staff to discuss Project history, Project
description, specific Project issues, and CEQA schedule. The City will provide
copies of previously completed studies and the Project site plan as available.
Chambers Group will prepare the CEQA project description and submit to
City staff for review.
Task 1.1: Kick~off Meeting and Data Acquisition
After receiving the notice to proceed (NTP), the Chambers Group Project
Manager, Ms. Kelene Strain, will meet with representatives from the City at a
Project lnitiation/Kick~Off Meeting to discuss the site history, project
description, specific project issues, and CEQA schedule; as well as receive
available Project information and technical reports. It is assumed that this
information will include the following listed technical studies identified in the
RFP: geotechnical evaluation report, feasibility study, design package, and
other available studies.
Chambers Group will review all available Project-related data and previous
technical reports provided by the City. Chambers Group is not responsible
for the accuracy of any existing technical reports. Chambers Group will work
closely with the City to determine what additional data must be collected in
support of the CEQA document being prepared. It is assumed that Chambers
Group can use these documents in the analysis of the Project.
Task 1.2: Project Description
Chambers Group will develop a comprehensive description for the Project
that will form the basis for the analysis of the potential impacts on the
environment, based on the information provided by the City. The project
description will include a narrative and graphical presentation of the Project,
including components, location and boundaries, regional and vicinity maps,
and a statement of the project goals and objectives, Chambers Group will
utilize the information gathered during the proposal site visit in order to
expedite the preparation of the project description.
Deliverables: Two (2) hard copies and one (i) electronic PDF copy of the
project description for City review.
B. Task 2: Preparation of Initial Study -Task Completed
Task 2.1: Draft IS
Chambers Group will prepare an Initial Study (IS) Checklist to confirm the
preparation of appropriate CEQA Documentation for the Project. The IS will
be prepared using the most recent version of the IS Environmental Checklist
Form suggested in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. In compliance with
CEQA Section i 5063, the IS will contain the following, in brief form:
A description of the project, including the location of the project;
An identification of the environmental setting;
A preliminary identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist,
matrix, or other method, with some evidence to support the entries;
and
A preliminary discussion of the ways to mitigate the significant effects
identified; if any.
The environmental factors outlined in the CEQA checklist include:
Aesthetics GHG Population and Housing
Agricultural Resources Hazards and Hazardous Public Services
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Transportation
Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of Tribal Cultural Resources
Significance
Energy Mineral Resources Utilities and Service
Systems
Geology and Soils Noise Wildfire
0 I 203.0006/813094.6
0 l203.0006/813094.6
After receiving one set of integrated comments on the draft IS, Chambers
Group will revise the IS accordingly. Chambers Group will review the
technical reports prepared for the Project and incorporate the results into
the Final Initial Study.
Deliverables: One electronic PDF copy of the Administrative Draft IS and
Final IS for one round of review with the City. Up to an additional two rounds
of review are anticipated should the City require an outside consultant to
provide peer review services for the Initial Study and technical reports.
C. Task 3: Technical Studies and Support
Task 3.1 Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas
Subcontractor Vista Environmental will provide an Air Quality, Energy, and
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Report pursuant to the City's and South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules and requirements for
the Project. The Project consists of the following three phases of
improvements:
Phase 1 -Repair of Existing Ground Fractures;
Phase 2 -Installation of Surface Drainage Improvements; and
Phase 3 -Installation of below-grade hydraugers.
The effectiveness of each phase will be examined to determine whether to
proceed with the next phase of the Project, however in order to provide a
worst-case analysis, the reports will analyze the impacts of implementing all
three phases of improvements.
Task 3.1. 1. Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Report
(provided by Vista Environmental)
• Provide existing Air Quality Setting, Regulatory Requirements
and Thresholds
• Provide a project description that details the project location
and nearby sensitive receptors.
• Identify the existing air quality setting in the area.
• Identify greenhouse gases (GHGs) and their associated impacts
to global climate change.
• Identify toxic air contaminants (TACs) and their potential health
effects.
Identify applicable federal, state, and SCAQMD's rules and
regulations and identify current attainment status of federal and
state standards, and current SCAQMD attainment plans.
Obtain existing air quality data from air quality monitoring
stations within the study area utilizing California Air Resources
Board (CARB) data sources. Data will be obtained for air
pollutants, including; ozone, nitrogen dioxide (N02), and
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).
Identify SCAQMD thresholds of significance for the criteria
pollutants and GHGs.
0 Identify thresholds of significance for energy usage.
Air Quali(v Jlm1fysis
.., Provide a project consistency analysis with the Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP). The consistency analysis will determine if the Project will contribute
to air quality violations and if it will comply with AQMP control measures.
0 Evaluate and quantify regional criteria pollutant emissions associated with
each of the three phases of improvements for the Project utilizing the
CalEEMod Model and construction assumptions provided by the applicant.
Compare the Project's construction-related regional criteria pollutant
emissions to the SCAQMD thresholds. If significant emission levels are found
to be created from construction activities, feasible mitigation will be developed
and quantified.
Evaluate local NOx, CO, PM 10, and PM2.5 emissions associated with each of
the three phases of improvements for the Project at the nearest off-site
sensitive receptors to each phase utilizing the SCAQMD Look-Up Tables and
the methodology described in Localized Significance Threshold Methodology,
prepared by SCAQMD, July 2008. If construction emissions exceed the
thresholds provided in the Look-Up Tables, the AERMOD model will be utilized
to calculate the air pollutant concentrations at the nearby sensitive receptors
from construction activities.
0 Provide a qualitative analysis of the construction-related toxic air contaminant
(TAC) impacts from the Project and detail how due to the limited duration of
construction activities that the cancer and non-cancer risks would be less than
significant.
012030006/813094.6
Provide a qualitative operational criteria pollutant analysis that details how
implementation of the Project would only create nominal emissions from
occasional maintenance truck trips, as such, operation of the Project would
result in less than significant air quality impacts.
Ii) Provide a qualitative odor analysis from construction and operation of the
Project. The odor analysis will identify the potential sources of odors and the
number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact as well
as providing detail of what constitutes a significant odor impact.
Utilize the results of the above tasks to develop responses to each of the air
quality-related CEQA checklist questions.
En(01gy Am-.1~ysis
0 Calculate construction energy usage through utilization of the CalEEMod
model run developed for the air quality analysis for each of the three phases
of improvements for the Project to quantify the total hours off-road equipment
will operate, the total worker miles traveled, and total haul and vendor truck
miles traveled during construction of the Project.
Utilize the fuel usage factors from OFFROAD20i i and off-road equipment
operating hours to calculate the fuel usage from the off-road equipment.
Utilize the vehicle fleet average miles per gallon rates from EMFAC20i 7 and
the worker and truck vehicle miles traveled to calculate the fuel usage from
on-road construction trips.
e Provide a qualitative operational energy usage analysis that details how
implementation of the Project would only create nominal emissions from
occasional maintenance truck trips, as such, operation of the Project would
result in less than significant energy impacts.
Provide an assessment of how the applicable renewable energy and energy
efficiency rules and regulations will be implemented by the Project and where
possible, quantify the energy savings achieved through implementing each
rule and regulation. If the Project is found to be inconsistent with any rule or
regulation, provide mitigation to ensure the project meets the requirements.
Utilize the results of the above tasks to develop responses to each of the
energy-related CEQA checklist questions.
Ii) Evaluate and quantify GHG emissions associated with each of the three phases
of improvements for the Project through utilization of the CalEEMod Model
run used in the Air Quality Analysis.
01203.0006/813094.6
Provide a qualitative operational GHG em1ss1ons analysis that details how
implementation of the Project would only create nominal emissions from
occasional maintenance truck trips, as such, operation of the Project would
result in less than significant GHG emissions.
Compare the construction GHG em1ss1ons to the SCAQMD's threshold of
3,000 metric tons of C02e per year. If the GHG emissions exceed any
applicable thresholds, provide mitigation to reduce the GHG emissions to less
than significant.
Determine if the Project would conflict with the Climate Change Policies in the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, adopted September 20i 8 and
provide responses of how the Project would meet each reduction measure. If
necessary, develop mitigation to ensure the Project will meet each applicable
measure.
Utilize the results of the above tasks to develop responses to each of the GHG-
related CEQA checklist questions.
R6'fWrt Prepcuatlon
0 Prepare an Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Report documenting the
results of the study and provides responses to each of the air quality, energy,
and GHG emissions-related CEQA checklist questions.
Task 3.2. Noise Analysis
Vista Environmental will provide a Noise Impact Report pursuant to the City's
noise ordinance.
e Identify nearby transportation-related noise sources such as Palos Verdes
Drive and aircraft noise (if any) to the project study area.
Detail fundamentals of noise that include noise source characteristics, noise
propagation, and definition of decibels and other noise descriptors.
o Identify applicable noise and vibration regulations and thresholds of
significance.
0 Evaluate the existing noise environment and obtain four long-term
(approximately 24 hours) noise measurements in the vicinity of the project site
in order to determine the ambient noise conditions at the project site and at
the nearby sensitive receptors.
Utilize the Federal Highway Administration's Roadway Construction Noise
Model (RCNM) Version 1. i to analyze potential noise impacts at the nearest
homes from each of the three phases of improvements for the Project.
Compare the results to the applicable City noise standards. If necessary,
develop mitigation to minimize the noise impacts from construction activities
at the nearby sensitive receptors.
o Utilize a version of the FHWA RD-77-108 noise prediction model to calculate
the existing and with project construction trips traffic noise contours at up to
0 I 203.0006/8130Y4.6
four roadway segments. Vista Environmental will use the roadway traffic data
provided in the Traffic Study prepared for the Project. Vista Environmental will
use the roadway traffic data provided in the Traffic Study prepared for the
Project and compare the results with the City noise standards.
o Analyze potential vibration impacts associated with construction activities
through application of the methodology used in the Transportation-and
Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual (Vibration Guidance Manual),
prepared for Caltrans.
Provide a qualitative operational noise analysis that details how
implementation of the Project would only create nominal noise emissions from
occasional maintenance truck trips, as such, operation of the Project would
result in less than significant noise emissions,
t) Prepare a noise and vibration impact analysis documenting the results of the
study and provide responses to each of the noise-related CEQA checklist
questions.
Cop fas of' fk;oort
0\203.0006/81309<1.C,
PDF and Microsoft Word versions of the reports will be provided to the
client.
Task 3.3 Biological Habitat Assessment and Report
The Portuguese Bend and Abalone Cove preserve areas have been well
documented. Chambers Group will review biological assessments provided
for the Portuguese Bend area as well as data provided in the Final Rancho
Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP and incorporate the data into an updated biological
habitat assessment. Chambers Group will also conduct a database review for
state and federally listed and/or sensitive species, USFWS National Wetlands
Inventory Maps, topographic maps, and blueline drainages. Once all data has
been reviewed, Chambers Group biologists will conduct a field survey and
confirm the existing vegetation data; however, much of vegetation
communities were scaled to a mapping unit of 1-acre which may not be
effective to assess quality of habitat, suitable habitat for listed or sensitive
species, and Project impact calculations. Therefore, Chambers Group will
provide a more detailed vegetation mapping and habitat assessments for the
Project impact areas, including: repair locations for existing fractures, surface
drainage improvements, flow reduction area (basin), and hydrauger locations.
This approach will reduce mitigation costs significantly. The biologists will
focus on suitable habitat for the NCCP/HCP covered species with a potential
to occur, including coastal California gnatcatcher and host plants for the
Palos Verdes blue butterfly as well as habitat for sensitive plants known to
occur in the area. Maps of the vegetation communities within the
approximate 250-acre area will be updated with the field data and will be
0 l203.0006/813094.6
digitized on aerial images. Potential waters and wetland habitats on the site
will be evaluated. Upon completion of field survey, all GIS data collected will
be reviewed. Data gathered from the survey and analysis effort will be
included in the comprehensive biological report. This task does not include
agency consultations or permitting.
This scope does not include focused surveys or agency consultations.
Task 3.4 Cultural Resources Assessment
The following tasks are provided to address the cultural resources
sensitivity of the 250-acre project area and satisfy information required to
address the CEQA checklist.
Task 3.4.1: Literature Review
Chambers Group will conduct a literature review, including a review of the
findings of a records search through the California Historical Resources
Information System (CHRIS) database at the South-Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC) housed at California State University, Fullerton.
The records search will be conducted by SCCIC staff and review relevant
previously recorded cultural resources and previous investigations
completed for the one-mile search radius surrounding the Project site.
Information to be reviewed will include location maps for al I previously
recorded cultural resources, previously conducted investigation boundaries,
National Archaeological Database {NADB) citations and copies for associated
reports, historic maps, and historic addresses. Chambers Group will also
review properties listed on/as the California Points of Historical Interest
(CPHI), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), Caltrans Historic Highway
Bridge Inventory, California Historical Resources Inventory, local city and
county registries of historic properties, the California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR), and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP}.
Additional sources of information that may be reviewed include but are not
limited to Certified Local Government annual reports and other data,
HABS/HAER records, the National Register Information System, the on-line
database for National Register sites, Calisphere Digital Resources, Online
Archive of California, Government Land Office Plat Maps, Sanborn Fire
Insurance Maps, local historical societies and libraries, as well as inventory
files and data on-file with other agencies that control property near the area.
The task will also include a search for potential prehistoric and/or historic
burials (human remains) evident in previous site records and/or historical
maps (i.e., Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Government Land Office Plat Maps).
In addition to the above research, a request that the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC} will be submitted for a review of their sacred
land files (SLF}. This search will identify if any resources important to Native
Americans have been recorded within the project area and surrounding
vicinity. The NAHC will provide the results and a list of affiliated tribal
0 I 203.0006/813094.6
representatives to contact for additional information. Chambers Group will
provide the results of the NAHC SLF search and list of tribes in the cultural
resources letter report. It is assumed that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
will be the lead under AB 52 Tribal Consultation (if necessary). Note that this
research alone does not satisfy the lead agency's requirements under AB 52.
An optional task to support the City with AB-52 consultation is included
below.
Task 3.4.2: Field Survey
Chambers Group will complete a field survey of the proposed 250-acre
project area. The cultural resources survey will be conducted in accordance
with the professional standards as described by the National Parks Service,
Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines, as amended for
Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Chambers Group cultural resources
specialist will survey the Project area for the presence of:
• Prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools),
• Tool-making debris, stone milling tools,
• Historic artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics),
• Sediment discoloration (ex. midden, hearth features),
• Depressions and other features indicative of the former presence of
structures or buildings (e.g., post holes, foundations),
• Historic ruins, buildings, structures, and/or objects.
This cost estimate assumes no cultural resources will be encountered during
this survey. If cultural resources are identified, a revised scope of work and
cost may be necessary.
Task 3.4.3: Letter Report
The results of the cultural resources study will be summarized in a letter
report which will include; the results of the literature review and field survey,
proposed mitigation measures (if any}, and site photos and references. The
letter report is assumed to contain up to 1 5 pages of text, graphics, and
appendices. A draft copy of the letter report will be provided to the City for
review.
Deliverables: One Draft and One Final electronic copy of the Archaeology
Survey Report
Optional Tasks 8.4.4
The following tasks are optional and dependent upon the findings work
completed previously. Upon Notice to Proceed (NTP) Chambers Group will
provide the following optional tasks, as directed.
Optional Task 3.4.4.A. Assembly Bill (AB 52) Tribal Consultation Support
The following task has been provided to support the City with AB 52
services, including but not limited to; preparation of notification letters; tribal
consultation and tracking; assessment of information related to TCRs
provided by the Tribe(s); and drafting appropriate mitigation measures (as
warranted). Up 24 hours have been included to provide support with this
task, as needed. If additional hours are needed to conclude AB 52
consultation an augmented cost and scope may be required.
Optional Task 3.4.4.B. Paleontological Review
Report describing the high potential importance of the Monterey and why
this area is of significance to the paleontological and geological community.
There is a known slight limitation on the stratigraphic location and position
of any important fossil specimens recovered due to the nature of the
landslide and the downward motion of deposits demonstrated by previous
studies of the Portuguese Bend Landslide since the 1950's. However, this
area is designated as type area for the Middle to late Miocene age Altamira
Shale Member of the Monterey Formation which does restrict the age as
recognized for this unit in the Palos Verdes Peninsula and elsewhere in
California. It is possible that significant vertebrate fossil remains and other
fossils such as invertebrate and plant remains may be discovered during
excavation activities associated with this Project. As a result of the field
survey it should be possible to determine if these deposits are fossiliferous
in this region and help to make recommendations for a future
Paleontological Mitigation Program.
Assumptions:
This proposal assumes a negative findings survey.
Task 3.5 Water Quality and Hydrology Study
KPFF Consulting Engineers will be preparing a CEQA technical report in
support of an MND or EIR. They understand the area of study is assumed to
be a roughly 650-acre watershed.
Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Report
The scope of work for this report includes a discussion of existing site conditions
as well as regulatory requirements and the role of government agencies regarding a
0 l 203.0006/813094.6
range of hydrological issues. The report will also include an analysis of potential
project impacts including flood hazard, ground water, and surface water runoff in
terms of the local and regional storm drainage systems, identification of project
mitigation measures, and significance of impacts both before and after mitigation.
Task 3.6 Visual Simulations
• Subcontractor VisionScape will produce highly accurate Visual Simulations
(accurate 3D modeling), generated with a systematic and scientific approach.
VisionScape will develop an exact computer model illustrating elevations,
natural and finished grades, existing and surrounding contextual elements
including adjacent buildings, reference points etc. Photorealistic materials,
maps, and textures will be applied to the modeling.
Data Gathering: CAD includes proposed Grading Plans, Architecture,
Landscape and Other Specifications.
• Camera Locations Determined: A determination of proposed key observation
points (KOPs) or camera locations will be reviewed and approved by City's
Contract Officer. VisionScape will coordinate the site photography and
schedule an initial site survey, This includes identification of reference points
using GPS and Camera Match Technology, utilizing a highly accurate Trimble
(Sub-Meter) GPS device and a "Full Frame" digital camera for documenting
coordinates at requested station points.
• 3D Camera Match: Computer model camera is matched with the approved site
photography. Reference points, proposed structures and 3D landscaping
depicts the project setting within the view.
• Final Touch Ups: Artistic touches are made to ensure that the accuracy, as well
as the look and feel, is consistent with the vision of the Project. Final visual
effects such as lighting and shadows allow our models to replicate the
appearance of the actual Project as it would appear following construction.
Task 3.7 Traffic Impact Analysis
Subcontractor LLG will provide consultation relating to preparation of a
construction-related transportation impact study ..
Task 3. 7.1. Transportation Impact Study
Obtain existing/historical traffic data at up to four key study intersections.
Preparation of the Existing (Without and With Construction Traffic) conditions.
Assess the impacts of the peak construction-related traffic and determine
significance based on the City's current thresholds. Prepare the Draft Formal
Transportation Impact Study for team and City staff review, Revise the Draft based
on one (1) round of comments and submit Final study to the team and City staff.
01203.0006/8 [3094.6
Task 3.8 Geology and Soils Assessment
Subcontractor Leighton and Associates, lnc.'s (Leighton) will primarily be guided by
the information provided in the Project RFP. As an internal measure of Quality
Control during our execution of the Project, Leighton will assign a Project Manager
and Senior Reviewer who will meet frequently to discuss project logistics, findings
and progress. Communications will be directed through Leighton's Project Manager,
as the single point of contact to foster clear communication.
Task 3.8.1. Part 1 Geological/Geotechnical
Leighton will conduct an assessment of potential environmental impacts posed by
the Project to support the geologic/geotechnical portion of the IS and/or EIR. This
report will be signed and stamped by a California-licensed Certified Engineering
Geologist (CEG) and Geotechnical Engineer (GE). Tasks proposed as part of our
scope of work will include the following:
"' Literature Search and Review: This task will involve a search for readily
0\ 203.0006/813094.6
available geologic and geotechnical literature pertinent to the Project,
including historical aerial photographs and topographic maps, private aerial
photographic collections, on-file at the City, contained within Leighton's in-
house library, on the world-wide-web, and provided by you. There are 60 years
of pertinent documents and data to collect, review and interpret.
Site Reconnaissance: Leighton will conduct a reconnaissance of accessible
areas of the subject Project area, and immediately surrounding areas, to
visually observe and evaluate existing geology, geomorphology, and soil
conditions,
Documentation: Leighton will prepare a document outlining Leighton's
assessment of environmental impacts relating to Geology and Soil. The
following will be part of Leighton's deliverable EA/IS documentation:
Geologic Setting: a general description of the type of native earth units (soil
and bedrock) and geologic structure.
Geologic Hazards: a discussion of potential geologic hazards at the site,
including landslides and slope stability, surface fault rupture, liquefaction and
ground shaking, seismic settlement, tsunamis and subsidence.
Geotechnical Hazards: a general characterization of onsite soil conditions, and
related hazards including but not limited to soil collapse, soil expansion and
erosion,
Groundwater: a general description of groundwater conditions based on
available data.
Earthwork: a general discussion of potential earthwork and grading
challenges, if any.
Optional G'eolechnk.:1:JI Scop{;:):
Third Party Review of Geotechnical Reports: If desired, Leighton can provide a 3rd
party review of the geotechnical reports provided for the project. Leighton can
review the reports from both a deficiency/standard-of-care perspective, and a value-
engineering perspective. As needed, Leighton will ask for electronic files of the
analysis files from the consultants. During their work, Leighton would look for
apparent deficiencies in the analysis and work, and prepare review comments for
the consultant to address, if deemed appropriate. Proposals for these optional
services can be prepared upon request.
Exclusions:
This scope of work also does not include services during design and construction of
the project.
Task 3.9 Hazardous Substances Assessment (Phase 1 Environmental Site
Assessment)
Leighton will conduct an assessment of potential hazardous substances
environmental impacts posed by the Project, for use in determining whether a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact report is warranted.
The purpose of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is to evaluate
potential for hazardous materials on the site and generally characterize the
expected nature of hazardous materials that may be present as a result of past and
current site 1.1sage. The assessment will be conducted in accordance with the current
ASTM "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I
Environmental Site Assessments Process E '1527-13." Leighton's scope of work is
expected to consist of the following tasks:
0 Site Reconnaissance: Leighton will perform an observational reconnaissance
of the Project for visual indications of environmental (hazardous materials)
conditions. This includes observations of the current conditions of structures
within the project site, roads, sewage disposal system, hazardous substances
and petroleum products, aboveground and underground storage tanks or vent
pipes, fill pipes or access ways indicating an underground storage tank, odors,
pools of liquid, sumps, drums, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) containing
equipment, heating and/or cooling system, stains or corrosion, pits, ponds or
lagoons, stained soil or pavement, stressed vegetation, solid waste,
wastewater (including clarifiers), wells, and dumping. The site reconnaissance
will be conducted by a qualified environmental professional as defined in the
ASTM E 1527-13. Land use of immediately adjacent properties to the project
site will be visually and/or physically observed and documented and any
conditions indicative of contamination or potential contamination will be
012030006/813094.6
documented, to the extent possible. Current site conditions will be
photographed.
• Data and Historical Records Review: A search of selected government
databases will be ordered from an environmental database company. The
report will meet the government records search requirements of ASTM E
1 527-13. The database listings will be reviewed within the specified minimum
search distances established by the ASTM E 1527-13. The lists will include:
Federal (NPL, CERCLIS, RCRA, IC/EC Registries, ERNS).
State and Tribal (NPL-equivalent, CERCLIS-equivalent, landfill and/or solid waste
disposal sites, leaking storage tank lists, registered storage tank lists, IC/EC control
registries, voluntary cleanup sites, and Brownfield sites).
Leighton will also review reasonably ascertainable historical sources of information
that show the Project site dating back to first developed use, or back to 1940,
whichever is earlier. The resources will include at a minimum aerial photographs
and topographic maps. In addition, Leighton will review existing geotechnical and
other environmental reports for mention of environmental conditions at the site.
Leighton will contact appropriate city, county, state, and federal agencies who may
have information pertaining to previous mitigation projects (identified during the
database review) for parcels adjacent to the project limits. Should it be determined
that files exist for the requested properties, they will be reviewed.
• Report Compilation: A report summarizing Leighton's findings, conclusions
addressing recognized environmental conditions (RECs) and their potential to
adversely impact the Project, and recommendations will be prepared. At a
minimum, the report will include a site location map, site visit notes and
photographs, summary of environmental database search, and a summary of
the historical use of the site. The memorandum will be prepared under the
direct supervision, and signed by, an Environmental Professional as defined in
the ASTM E 1527-i 3.
• Deliverables: Draft Phase I ESA and Final Phase I ESA.
II. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible
work products to the City: See Section I for deliverables.
Ill. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2, during performance of the Services,
Consultant will keep the City appraised of the status of performance by delivering the
following status reports:
A. Consultant will provide status reports as needed. The frequency of the status
reports shall be determined ongoingly by the City's Contract Officer, in
consultation with Chambers Group, as appropriate.
0 I 203.0006/813094.6
IV. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be revised
by the Consultant without additional charge to the City, in accordance with Section I,
above. All Technical Studies must be finalized to the satisfaction of City and the City's
environmental consultant that will prepare the Environmental Impact Report and must
be of a quality and thoroughness that they can be used without revisions for the
Environmental Impact Report.
V Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services:
-·-----
Staff Member: Role / Title
Project Manager Mike McEntee, Principal-in-Charge / President and Chief Operating Officer
Corinne Lytle-Bonine: Technical Advisor, Sr. Planner/ Managing Environmental Planner
Meghan Gibson: Environmental Planning & Documentation / Project Environmental Planner
Eunice Baqwan: Environmental Planning and Documentation / Staff Environmental Planner
Paul Morrissey: Bioloqical Resources Lead / Director of Biology
Heather_qi:l1ton: Botany and Restoration Services / Senior Bioloqist, Restoration Lead
Saraiah Skidmore: Wildlife Biology Resources/ Senior Biologist, Wildlife Lead
Heather Franklin: USFWS CAGN Permit Holder/ Project Biologist
Sandra Pentney, MA, RPA, ENV SP: Cultural Resources Lead / Managing Cultural Resources
Specialist
Hugh Wagner: Paleontological Resources / Managing Cultural Resources Specialist
Richard Shultz: Cultural Resources / Staff Cultural Resources Specialist
_l:_ucas Tutschulte: Cultural Resources / Staff Cultural Resources Specialist
Ken Hazlett: Cultural Resources / Staff Cultural Resources Specialist
Eddie Font: Aesthetics and Visual Simulations / Principal Architectural Visualization
Greg Tonkovich, AICP, INCE: Air, Greenhouse Gas, Noise/ Secreta~ and Senior Analyst
Djan Chandra, PE, GE: Geotechnical Engineering / Senior Principal Engineer
Brynn McCollough, PG: Environmental Geologist / Principal Geologist .. ~ ... ·-·
Jason Hertzberg, PE, GE: Geotechnical Engineering / Principal Engineer
Jeff Hull, PG, CEG: Certified Enqineerinq Geologist/ Associate Geologist
01203.0006/813094.6
, Water Quali
David McGraw, PE: H drolo , Water Qualit
Clare M. Look-Jae er, PE: Traffic / Principal
01203.0006/8 I 3094.6
--
01203 0006/813094.6
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION PROJECT SITE
i/ I \'Y'
'
'\ tif)Ci:?(1t 1 rn ,1,Uidr; (:, Hll\ : •!;
cw~· :.:f :u,t,,,;--.::i ;,_,•,in~', tH.1~.,._~
Regit,n,11 G,ology
I.
II.
IV.
V.
EXHIBIT "C"
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT NO. 2
Consultant shall perform the following tasks at the following rates:
Task 1.1 Project IJlitiation $7,338.00 $7,338.00
Task 2.1 Admin Draft Initial Study $13,114.00 $13,114.00
Task 3 Technical Studies Per Sub-Tasks Per Sub-Tasks
Task 3.1 Air Quality, Energy, GHG Analyses $1)79.81 $S,760.00
Task 3.2 Noise Analysis $729.60 $3,840.00
-------~------~-
Task 3.3 Biological Assessment $9,957.50 $19,372.50
Task 3.4 Cultural Resources $16,640.00 $22,089.00
Task 3.5 Water Quality & Hydrology $45,100.00 $55,000.00
Task 3.6 Visual Simulations $9,400.00 $9,400.00
Task 3. 7 Traffic Impact Analysis $14,535.00 $15,300.00
Task 3.8 Geology & Soils $20,935.00 $26,500.00
Task 3.9 Hazards Phase I ESA $9,430.00 $20,500.00
Task 5.0 EIR $25,373.60 $70,429.00
Transfer from Task 5 to Task 3 $0 $0
Task 6.0 Meetings & Hearings $5,568.00 $5,568.00
Task 7.0 Additional Responses to Comments $250.00 $10,000.00
Task 8.0 Reimbursables $572.39 $3,367.00
Total $179,422.90 $287,577.50
$7,338.00
$13,114.00
Per Sub-Tasks
$5,760.00
$3,840.00
$19,372.50
$22,089.00
$55,000.00
$9,400.00
$15,300.00
$26,500.00
$20,500.00
$25,373.60
$15,000.00
$5,568.00
$250.00
$572.39 ----
$244,977.5
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.
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.
The City will compensate Consultant for the Services petformed upon completion and
acceptance of each Technical Study following submission of a valid invoice
The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed the Contract Sum as
provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement.
01203.000G/813094.G
EXHIBIT "D"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Consultant shall submit all Technical Studies in a finalized state to the satisfaction of
City and the City's environmental consultant that will prepare the Environmental
Impact Report and must be of a quality and thoroughness that they can be used
without revisions for the Environmental Impact Report in accordance with the
followings
Technical Study .... · .. ·•·•• .. Fin~l Submittal Date ·.•··
·. .
Air Quality, Energy, GHG 10/20/22
Emissions Report
Noise Analysis 10/20/22
Biological Assessment 9/30/22
Cultural Resources 9/30/22
Updated Archaeological 9/30/22
Survey
Updated Archaeological 9/30/22
Repo1t
Water Quality & 11/3/22
Hydrology
Traffic Impact Analysis 10/25/22
Geology & Soils 10/30/22
Hazards Phase I ESA 10/30/22
II. City and City's environmental consultant will review each Technical Study within one
calendar week after it is submitted.
Ill. Consultant shall address any comments from the City or City's environmental
consultant no later than one week after receipt.
IV. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the
following dates.
See Section I for deliverables and due dates
V. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services In
accordance with Section 8.2.
01203.0006/813094.6