20250506 Late Correspondence·,
Via Email
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
David L. Brad ley, Mayor
Pau l Seo, Mayor Pro Tern
Barbara Ferraro, Cou ncil Member
George Lewis, Counci l Member
Ste ph en Percstam , Coun c il Member
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Email: david.brad ley@rpvca.gov: pau l.seo@rpvca.gov
barbara . ferraro@rpvca.gov ; george. lew is @ rpvca .gov ;
stephen.perestam@rpvca.gov
~ 213-794-7580
■ ea@beatricetlaw.com
9 www.b atrlcetiaw.com
9 9-465 Wilshire Blvd. Ste 300
Beverty Hills. CA 190212
April 30, 2025
AGENDA IT EM: _l ______ _
RECEIVED FROM:
DQ . ~1 -.)fu 1-(:o u
AND MA DE PART OF THE RECJORD_ ATTHE
COUNCIL MEETING OF: S /1, _ 2-0 ·z.<o
OFF ICE OF THE CITY CLERK
RE: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL SCHEDULED FOR MAY 6, 2025
Appel lants Ying Mou and Chunxiao Zhang respectfully s ubmit the following m emorandum
in s up port of t he ir appeal to the City Counci l.
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The appe ll ants own th e land and the home at 3015 Crest Road , Rancho Pa los Verdes, CA
90275. T hey bought their home in the early month s of 20 18.
When they purchased their land in 2018, th e appe ll ants were mvare that it was burdened by a
I 0-feet-wide sewer easement. The only document Appe llant received regarding the sewer
easement, and the onlv le'?al de scr iption of the sewer ease ment are embedded herein as
EXHIB IT I .
CITY OF RA NCHO PALOS VERD ES
CITY COUNCIL
f~E-;\1H,!ON.\NDl ' I I~ SlfPPORTOF :\!'Pl.A l ~UH·.l>PLl :n FOR ~f:\Y ,, !(J."!(
The legal description of th e sewe r ea sement show~ that the land adjacent to the Appellant's
land , 3027 Crest Road (Parcel I), has a I 0 -fee t-v,ide s ub s urface sewer easement over a
specific area of the Appellant's land (Parcel 2 ).
(i) General California Law Regarding Easements
In California, an easement is a nonpossessory interest in the land of another that entitles the
easement holder to limited use of the land for a purpo se s pecified in the easement grant
(Wo((ord v. Thomas (198 7) 190 Cal.App.3d 347; Ku::,i v. ,<,'tal e Form Fire & Casualty Co.
('.~001) 24 Cal.4th 87l;Woljimll'. 1homus (1987) 190 Cal.App.Jc! 347 .))
An cas ement does not grant the casement holder ownership or posscssory rights in the land it
burdens id.
The land burdened by the easement is the servient estate and generally the grantor of the
easement. The land that benefits from the easement is the dominant es tate and generally the
grantee of the easement (Zissler v. Saville (2018) 2 9 Cal.App.5th 630; Aiurphy v. Burch
(2009) 46 Cal.4th l 5 7.) The servient estate owner retain s all rights to their property that are
not inconsistent with the easement, and the se rvient es tate o\vner is e ntitled to make any use
of their property that doe s not unrea sonab ly inte rfere with the easement's purpose (Inzano v.
Turlock Irrigation Dist. Bd. r/Dir ectors (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 429; Dofnikov v. Ekizian
(2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 419.;)
T he responsibility to repair the easement fal ls e ntirel y on the easement holder. and the
servient owner is not obligated to maintain or repair the easement unless there is an
agreement to that effect. The holder of the easement ha s the right to enter the servien t estate
to perform necessary repairs or maintenance, provided thi s is done in a reasonable manner
that does not impose an undu e burden on the servient estate, (Reinsch v. Los Angeles ( 1966)
2 43 Ca l.App.2d 737.)
Based on the le ga l description of the easement below, Parcel 2 (3015 Crest Rd), which is
burdened by the easement, is the servient estate and the g rantor of the easement, and Pnrcel I ,
which benefits from the easement, is the dominant es tate. and the gra nt ee of the easement.
Appellants are, therefore, the grantors of th e easement.
(ii) Legal Description of the Easement
The sewer easement described below is a non exc lusiv e I 0-fee t-wide easement. Consistent
with sewer easements, which are s ubsurface ri g ht s to use the land be neath for the specific
purpose of installing sewer pipes/laterals and maintaining and repairing s uch pipes/lnterals,
the sewer easement described in EXHIBIT l has no height requirements. It only provides a
I 0-feet-wide width requirement.
2
CITY Of RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY COUNCIL
RL .\JL.\IORANDl :,\j L" Sl'.PPUR ! rn, APPi.1\I :-'.Ull DI 'LLD FOR ,\L\ \ ,,
Therefore, based on the legal description of the ea~cmcnl below, Parcel I has a
1wnpos~esso1y right to use the land bt'IK'atl1 !he .~pee i ril'd ,nea or Parcel 2 ( described bclovv)
to install sewer pipes/laterals. JJ1t:_ QWJlCJSJ)f Par(:_cl ~ sti UJctain thc:ju11L'i.J2ilf_e righ1::-,JQ il1e_ir
lm1<:l,Jl1(;right to use the surf1!<:S:~QfthGir l~11Jt qnsJ th<; rigl1t l(lUS<:Jl)s_;;11b~.w:l!-!c.c_Qf their land
to the extent that the particular part of the subsurface is not occupied by the Parcel I's
easement (sewer pipes/lateralsl.J'arcel 2's owners' only responsibility to the casement holder
is to ensure that their use of their land is not inconsistent with the casement's purpose.
EXHIBIT 1 -Legal Description of Sewer Easement.
LEGAL DESCRJP'TION FOR EASEMENT TO
PARCEL 1 FOR SANITARY $EWER PURPOSES
lN THE CITY OF RANCHO PAlOS VERDE,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
STATE Of CAUJ!ORNIA
AN EASEMENT f.OR SANITARY SEWER PURPOSES 10 FEE:'T WIDTH ovrn
THAT PORTiON OF PARCEL 2 or: PARCEL MAP NO, 19424, !N THE CHY OF
HANCHO PALOS VERDES, COUN'!Y OF LOS ANGf:LES, STAIE OF
CAUFOftN!A, AS PER MAP F!lED IN BOOK 237. PAGES 94 AND 9-5, OF
PARCEL MAPS, !N THE OFF!CE OF THE COUNTY HECORDEA: OF COUNTY.
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS
SEOINNING AT THE INTERSECTION PO!NT OF THE BOUNDARY UNES Of
PARCEL 1 ANO PARCEL 2 (fl.'ORTH 42' 20' 25~ WEST AND NORTH 4')' 00' 00"
WEST), THENCE NORTH 49• 00' oo~ WEST 9,33 FEET. THENCE NORTH 50'
00' oo· EAST 113.3'3 FEET. THENCE NORTH 23• 22' 40' wr:sr 10.44 FEET,
THENCE NORTH 50• 00' 00' EAST 108,86 FEET. THENCE NORTH 42" W' ?.5•
WEST 0,78 FEET lO THE P01NT Of iH!G!NNING,
SA!O PARCEL CONTAINING 1112 SQUARE FEET, OR o.o:mACRES.
3
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS \1ofUJES
crry COUNCfL
Rf·: \if'.\fOR.A'-Dl ·\1 !.\; Sl '1'/'0l<T{lF :\Pi'l :\1 4:( l!i /J\ ·1,cp VO({ .\1:\ 'It,
(iii) Appellants Request a Pemtit from The Cit}' to Build on Their Land.
According to numerous Staff Reports that the City has published and to the City's Resolution
PC. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-10, the Appellants submitted a permit on July 12, 2018, to
build on their land, Parcel 2.
The relevant parts of the drawings of the plans that the appellant submitted to the City and the
actual built structure are embedded here as EXHIBIT 2.
EXHIBIT 2 -Drawing Plans submitted to the City.
4
nrv ()~ RAN CHO PA LOS VER O ES
CITY COUNC IL
RE: 1\lE~fORA N Dl .!M IN SL11'POR T OF :\PP F ,\I . ~UIEDL!l.f]) FOR \I:\ Y 6. 202,;;
EXHIBIT 2-Annex (Physical Depiction of the Drawings)
5
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY COUNC IL
RE: MEi\lOR.·\N l)ll\f IN SU PPOR T OF .·\PPL,\L ~CJJH>Of.L() FOR ~1:\Y l• .. :n2,
As shown above, the plans that appellants submitted to the C it y showed that they did not
intend to build any permanent structure on th e surfau· ground where Parcel 1 held the I 0-
feet-wide subsurface sewer easement. Based on the plans that the appellants submitted to the
City, the surface ground was left bare, and the appellants proposed a ceiling h eight of l O feet
above the s urface ground where the subsurface sewer easement was. The Citv did not require
that appellants maintain a ceiling he ight of 10 fe e t above the surface gro und. The I 0-foot
ceiling height was mere ly the appellants· design for their home.
On Ju ly 18, 2 018. about a month after Appellants submitted their app lication to the City. the
City's Planning Division of the Community Development Department (also referred to as "th e
City") issued Appellants an "incomplete letter" that outlined various deficienci es with
Appe llant's application. Of relevance here , the City infc)fmed appellants that th e ir proposed
plans implicated Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal C ode (RPVMC) section 17.49 .030.F, which
provides as follows:
Easeme nts . Setbacks from legal easements, othe r than street right-of-way
easements, shall not be required. In addition to the app1·opri:1tc review and
approval by the City, no construction of any structure or improvement is
6
CITY OF RANl'!-10 PA LOS VERDES
CITY COU NCIL
HE: il.ff..i\lOlt•\Nl)UM IN S l !Jif>OR T OF :\PPr.,\I SUIEl>l !LEf.l FOR 1\f.-\ Y t•. :!02"
allowed within a legal easement without written authorization from the
legal holder of the easement. Such authorization shall be in a form that
can be recorded and shall be reviewed by the city attorney.
After the City determined that the proposed plans were within the easement, the City
Attorney prepare d a document titled "CONSTRUCTION AND ENC ROACHMENT
AGREEMENT" for appellants and the owner of Parcel l to sign. Appellants attest, and are
prepared to sign a declaration und er the penalty of perjury to this effect when necessary , that
the City informed them that th e only way they could construct on the land they had paid over
$1 million dollars to acquire was if they s ig ned th e CONSTRUCT ION AND
ENCROACHM ENT AGREEMENT prepared by the C ity Attorney; that appellants
understood the agreement to be part of th e permittin g process: and that Appellant trusted the
C it y Attorney to be acting in their best interests.
According to various staff reports s ub sequently issu ed by the C it y, the C it y deemed the
appellants' application complete for process in g on June 5 . 2 020. and s ub sequently iss ued
permits to build on their land.
While the appellants were building their hom e , Appellants needed to install AC ducts and
utility pipes in the area right underneath the cei lin g as s hown EX HIBIT 3 below. Appellants
then enc losed the area underneath the area to cover and protect th e utility pipes and AC ducts.
This enclosure caused th e ceiling height to lowe r from 10 feet to 8 feet. T he height of
appellants structural beam remained unchange d from the IO feet plan they previously
submitted to the City .
The owner of Parcel I noticed the change in ce ilin g h e ig hts and reported her obs ervaLions to
the City. The City s ubsequently is s ued a s top order to the appellants and informed them that
lowering the ceiling height by two feet wa s a construction or improvement within the sewer
easement. Appellants, therefore , needed the written authorization of their neighbors to lower
their ce ilin g height by tw o feet.
7
CITY OF RANCH O ~Al.OS VER DES
CITY COUNC IL
RE: :-..IEMOR.-\NDl :\f IN Sl lPPOR f O F A f'P F •\I '-:t l 11 :tJl iLf,.P FO R ,\I:\ 'y ,, ~{)'2'-
EXHIBIT 3 -Installation of AC Ducts and Utility Pipes
< Rancho Palos Verd es -San Pedro Hill Edit
Dece mber 7, 2023 10:26AM 8
8
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY COUNCIL
RF· \JL\[ORA-....;Dt ·'.\J !\ SU'POR ! OF :\l'JT:\I S( ! H Dt'.LLI) fOR \L·\ '( 1,
B. APPf:AL OF THE CITY'S DECISION
Appellants submitted a written appeal of the City's decision to the City on November IL
2024. The City set a hearing date for the appeal on l·cbruary 11. 2025. Before the hearing on
the appeal, the Appellants, through their counsel. requested clarification from the City
regarding the City's findings that the appellants' building plan was w£thirJ the 10-feet-widc
subsurface se,ver casements. Specifically. appellants requested clarification on how far no1ih,
south, east or west appellants needed to construct their building from the subsurface sewer
casement not to have been within the sewer casement.
Mr. Robert Nemeth, acting on behalf of the City, informed counsel frlr the Appellants that the
City's legal reasoning for finding that the Appellants' building was within the I 0-foct-wide
subsurface sewer casement would be provided in the City's Staff Report five days before the
hearing date.
In the Staff Report that was subsequently published, and al the February 11, 2025, appeal, the
City cited the Construction and Encroachment Agreement that the City Attorney prepared to
support its findings that the Appellant building was \'11.!_~i_i: the I 0-foet-wide subsurface sewer
casement. The City argued that by signing the Construction and Encroachment Agreement,
Appellants somehow converted the I 0-foet wick subsurface sewer casement into a I 0-fcet
wide, 10-feet high sewer easement. That b, somehow, by lh0 Agreement the sewer easement
as described in EXIIIBIT I that had no airspace rights or land sudi1cc rights was converted to
an easement with airspace rights and land surface rights. and the airspace right of the
casement was exactly l O fret high.
Tbe mental gymnastics the City conducted to arrive at this conclusion arc not supported by
the facts, the express written terms of the Construction and Encroachment Agreement, or any
California legal authority.
Firstly, it was precisely becaus0 the City determined that !he appellants' building plan was
~_thin the easement, thereby implicating Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC)
section 17.49.030.F, that the City required appellants to sign the Construction and
Encroachment Agreement that the City's Attorney prepared. Therefrm~, this Agreement could
not have been what placed the appellants' building within the subsurface sewer easement as
the City determined.
Secondly. even if the City's argument is to be considered. nowhere in the express wril1en
terms of lhe Agreement do the par! ies to the Agreement expressly state that they in lend lo
convert or amend the subsurface sewer easement as described in EXI IJBIT 1 into an
easement with surface and airspace rights or an airspace rights of IO foct high.
The City relics on the following paragraph and language of the Construction and
Encroachment Agreement to suppoii its determination.
9
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY COUNCIL
RL .\ff~IORA\;I)l'.\! 1,, st:PPORlOF :\Pl'l,A! :-;un:Dl'.LLD FOR \I:\Y 1,
''2. Construction and Encroachment Agreement. Grantor, for themselves and for their
successors and assigns. hereby convey and grant to Grantee. its successors and assigns. an
encroachment as described in Exhibit C (the "Project Plans") and non-exclusive
easement (the "Construction and Encroachment Agreement") over, under, in, along,
across and upon the property described on the attached and incorporated Exhibit D (the
"Easement Area") fix use in the construction and installation of the improvements and other
construction purposes reasonably related to the construction of'thc improvements dcscribcd in
Exhibit C (the "Project Plans"). Prior to commencement of the Construction and
Encroachment Agreement, Grantee shall have access to the Easement Arca during normal
business hours to conduct all studies. tests. examinations and surveys necessary to design and
construct the impro\·ements.'·
**The Grantor to this Agreement is identffied as Afs. S)>/via H Soong, and the Appellants are
described as the Grantees.
The Citv's Argument
The City argued that the use of the words ·'over, under, in, along, across and upon the
property described on the attached and incorporated Exhibit D (the "Easement Area")"
in the Agreement means that the I Cl' wide subsurface sewer casement was converted to a 1 O'
wide easement with land surface rights and airspace rights of exactly 1 O' high.
Appellants vehemently disagree with the City's analysis and are confident that every
California court of competent jurisdiction will disagree with the City's reasoning and
analysis.
However, even if the City's legal reasoning is to be considerecL as a matter of basic principles
of property law and common sense, an individual can grant another individual only the
property rights that the individual uctuallv has. A person cannot grant another person rights
in a property that that person does not have. Ms. Soong is identified as the grantor in this
Agreement, which means that under the Agreement she is the one granting whatever
property rights she has to the grantees of the Agreement. Therefore. Ms. Soong, here. as the
only grnntor to this Agreement, can only grant the grantees the property rights that she has.
As identified above, Ms. Soong's Parcel. Parcel l. has a I 0-foet-wide subsurface sewer
easement. Therefore, if Ms. Soong could grant anything under this Agreement, it would be
her property's I 0-feet-widc subsurface sewer casement rights.
The appellants, who own Parcel 2. the land burdened by the l 0-feet-wide subsurface
easement retained their airspace and land surface right above the sewer easement. Appellants
are identified as the grantees of this Agreement. Thcrd<.)rc. according to this Agreement,
appellants arc not granting any property rights by this Agreement---they arc only receiving
property rights granted by Ms. Soong and/or her property.
Ms. Soong could not grant airspace and land surface rights by this Agreement because she
had no legal rights to them. Thus, given that appellants were the legal owners of the land,
owned the airspace and land surface rights, and did not grant anything by this Agreement,
there is absolutely no way by this Agreement that appellants converted or amended the l 0-
foet-wide subsurface easement into a l 0--foet-vvide casement with airspace and land surface
rights of 10 feet high.
10
CITY OF RAN CHO PALOS VERDES
CITY COU NCIL
RE· M E\IO R.-\. '1)1 l~I IN s r l'POR T OF :\PJ'L AI . SCIIU)l ff.Ln FOR ~(;\ Y 1_, 201."
Additionally , now here in this Agreement do appe llants implicitl y or explicitl y warrant to
maintain a cei lin g h e ig ht of IO feet high , and at all t im es .
F urth ermore, the paragraph that the City re lie s on stales "Grantor ... conveys ... !!Q.!!:
exclusive easement (the "Construction and Encroachment Agreement") over, under, in,
along, across and upon the property described on the attached and incorporated
Ex hibit D (the "Easement Arca").
The property d escr ibed in EXHIBIT D is the Appellant's land . Ms . Soong ca nn ot grant any
one property r ig ht s, including easements or license s in property that s he do es not lega ll y own.
In addition to the fact that Ms . Soo ng can not legall y grant anyone rights in land that she does
not own , under California law, an individual can not grant a homeowner an e asem ent in the
homeowner's own land. See, California Civil Code § 804 "A suvitude can be created only
by the person who has a vested estate in the servient tenement" [meaning, an easement
can only be created by the person with possessory and ownership rights in the laud.] See
also, California Civil Code§ 80 5 "A servitude thereon cannot be held by the owner of
the servient estate." [meaning the landowner cannot hold an easement in their own
land.]
T he C ity's legal rea sonin g a nd interpretation o f thi s Agreement to support its decision are
s imply wrong.
The most reasonab le interpretation oflhis Agreem e nt is that Ms. Soong agreed lo grant
a ppel lan ts a non-exclusive license to e ncroach ov er her IO feet wid e s ubs urface sewer
e a sem e nt. That is, Ms. Soong agree d that appellants co uld al s o utilize the same s ub s urface
land area where he r sewer pipes are s upposed to be for appellants' construction a nd
improvement project s. For example , by this li ce nse , if Ap pellan ts also wanted to in sta ll the ir
sewer pipes at the same lo cation where M s. Soong's sewe r pipes are s upposed to be , t he n they
co uld do so a s we ll.
C. MS. SOONGS REASONlNG FOR OB.JECTlNG TO LOWERING THE
CEILING HEIGHT FROM 10' TO 8'.
During th e last appeal, Ms. Soong c it ed conc e rns about repairing her sewer pipes as her
reaso n ing for objecting to the ceiling height being lowered by 2 fe e t fron1 IO feet to 8 feet.
Respectfully, Ms. Soong's concerns are u n founded . Mr. Michael Song, S.E, a California
lic e nse d s tru ctural engineer, has opined that any future sewer pipe repai rs and replacement of
the sewer pipes, which are buried 6 ' to 9' below the appellants' land surface, must be
performed trenchless. In other word s, the sewer pipes can only be repaired usin g ba s ic tools.
Should it become necessary, Ms. Soong's ability to e nter into the a ppe llant's land to repair her
sewer pipes wi ll not be impaired or in hi b ited by th e c eilin g hei g ht being lowered to 8 feet.
Additionally, Ap pellants' sewe r pipes are buried around the sam e area as Ms . Soo ng's pipes.
T he fact that appellants obtained th e nece ss ary pe rmit's to la y th e ir se w ~r latera ls near Ms.
11
CITY OF RA NC HO PA LOS VERDES
CITY COUNC I L
RE: l\1E~IOR A~l)l),\,f IN SUPPORT or .-\PPf '.1 \L SCfllDliLED FOR \I:\ Y t> ~o .:s
Soo ng's sewer pi pes, appel lants engi neer found no issues with appellants ab il ity to effect ively
and efficient ly repair their sewer pipes using the same trench less method is prooflhal Ms.
Soon g's ability to repair he r sewer pipes wil l not be inhibited in anyway by the cei ling heig ht
being low ered to 8 feet.
Las tl y, seve ral plannin g co mmi ssioners ex press ed in their remarks during the Feb ru ary 11th
hearing that the 8-feet high ce ilin g does not burden any effort to access, repai r, and /o r
maintain Ms. Soong's or the A pp e llan ts' sewe r laterals and any potential repair or
maintenance work 011 eithe r party's sewer lateral s can be done successfull y, eve n wit h the 8-
feet hi g h cei lin g.
The opinion of Mr. Michael Soong, S.E is embedded here as EXHIBIT D.
12
CITY OF KAN('HO PALOS VERDES
CITY COUNCIL
HE.\!L\IORA\:DL\11:\ .')l'.Pf'OR!"{H· _:\PPl Al '-:( llL{)!:U,D H)R .\I:\\(,
M.S. Consulting Engineering
1263 I Imperial HWY //FM230. Santa Fe Spring:-.. CA 9fJ67!J
T cl: {562) 863M9999; fn:-. (562) X63M999 L m~pL'~e•<i 1!trn1il.i:orn
February 4, 2025
To: Mr. ChunXiao Zhang
3015 Crest Road
From:
Re:
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Michael Song. P.E., S.E.
M.S. Consulting Engineering
Sewer pipe future repairs & replacement
Dear Mr. Zhang,
Per our phone conversations regarding the referenced sewer pipes of the property 3027 &
3015 Crest Road located on the sewer easement as shown in the attached plan.
It is my opinion that the f't1ture sewer pipe repairs or replacement for 3027 Crest Road which
is buried 6 fret to 9 feet below the finish grade ( see attached building section for more
clarification) must be performed trenchless. any open trench construction repair or
replacement will destabilize the building structure.
In the hyper theoretical occasion that the only way to repair or replace a portion of the sewer
pipe is open trench -then a California licensed professional civil I structural engineer must
be hired to design & specify the procedure of the construction, the design & procedure must
be re,·iewecl and approved by the building dcpnrtment of City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
Cal/OSHA pennit must be obtained before commencing any work.
lfyou have any questions or concerns regarding this letter. please do not hesitate to contact
our office at (562) 863-9999. email: mspescrcvgmail.com.
Very truly yours.
Michael Song, S.E. (CA Registration C-66285: S-5266: renew date: 6/30/2026)
M.S. Consulting Engineering
Page 1 '3G
13
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY COUNCIL
f{L ,\fE!\IORA\d)L\f L\ Sl :pr>OR r Of· ,.\f'PL\l S{ I ff.{)t :L{J) FOR .\l:\ 'r (,
D. APPALLANTS PLEA TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Appellants respectfully request that the City Council ov0rturn the Planning Commission's
decision, which the City states is based on its inteq,retation of the Construction and
Encroachment Agreement.
Appellants recognize and nppreciate the wisdom behind Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code (RPVMC) section 17.49.030.F to protect the rights of easement holders. However,
appellants believe that section 17.49.030.l< as applied to the facts of their case, is an incorrect
interpretation of the City Code. The easement in question here is a l 0-foot-wide subsurface
sewer easement. Ms. Soong's easement location is where her sewer pipes are buried below
the ground. Ms. Song's sewer pipes arc buried behveen 6 feel and 9 foet deep into 1he ground.
Therctcm.\ the distance between the appellant's c1.;iling height or 8 feet and Ms. Soong's actual
sewer pipes is at least 14 feet A ceiling height of about 14 foet above an easement (the sewer
pipes) cannot be within that casement.
Finally, the Appellants arc willing to enter into a 1wvv agreemcn1 with Ms. Soong, which will
invalidate and nullify the previous Construction and Encroachment Agreement but ,viii
outline each party's duties, rights, and obligations regarding the I 0--fed-wide sewer easement,
and each party will commit to comply with their obligations under the law regarding the
easement. For example, under the ne,v Agreement. the appellants can commit to not making
use of their land in a manner that is inconsistent with the easement's purpose.
Sincerely,
Date: 04/30/2025
BcatriceT Law, A California Professional Corporation
Elizabeth Opuni Afriyie, Esq.
Attorney f<;r Appellants. ring .Hou und Chunxiao Zhang
14
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MAY 6, 2025
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No.
C
H
3
4
Description of Material
Updates from Staff
Emails from: Al Sattler; Philip Friess
Emails from: Christy Shahnazarian; Chris Engen
Updated Attachment I (Geosyntec Agreement)
Emails from : Anne Cruz; Marianne Hunter
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, May 5, 2025**.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\202512025 Coversheets\20250506 additions revisions to agenda .docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Councilmembers -
Catherine Jun
Tuesday, May 6, 2025 12:22 PM
CityClerk; CC
LATE COMMUNICATION: SB 79 and AB 647
CalCities has provided a timely update on 2 bills that the City took oppose positions on and are_Q_n tonighJ's
ag_endaJor affirm_ati_on . Please see below:
AB 647 (Gonzalez) -Early action by cities and our advocacy efforts in Sacramento have stopped AB 647 from
moving forward this year, dying in the Assembly Local Government Committee. AB 647 would have required
local governments to approve up to 8 housing units ministerially in nearly all single-family zones, so long as only
one unit was affordable. We consider this a success and will continue to look out for similar housing bills.
SB 79 (Wiener)-This bill made its way to the Senate Appropriations Committee. SB 79 would require cities to
approve transit-oriented development up to seven stories high and with a density of 120 homes per acre, without
regard for community needs, environmental review, or public input. The City will continue to track the bill this
year.
Thank you.
Catherine Jun
Deputy City Manager
cjun@rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5203
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www .rpvca.grut
-0 -. ·-
DOWNLOAD
'Ill'! ~3V
This e-mail me ssage contains info rmation belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential, and/or
protected from disc losure. The information is intended only for use of the ind ividual or entity named. Unauthor ized 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 . Than k you for your assistance and coope ration.
Catherine
From: Jeff Kiernan <jkiernan@calcities.org>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 2:36 PM
To: Jeff Kiernan <jkiernan@calcities.org >
Subject: Legislative Update and an Appropriations Webinar
Good Monday Mayors, Council Members, and City Staff,
Last week, was the legislative deadline for the House of Origin to report fiscal bills introduced in its
house to the respective appropriations committees. The dreaded appropriations "suspense file day,"
1 C.
where bills die without explanation, is quickly approaching, and many bills will have their fate sealed
on May 22 nd . Anticipating this deadline, Cal Cities is hosting a webinar to highlight critical bills in the
duel Appropriations committees on May 12 th at 1 :30 pm -details below. You can register for that free
webinar here .
Some good news
Cal Cities-sponsored bill AB 650 (Papan) has passed both the Assembly Housing and Assembly Local
Government Committees unanimously with bipartisan support and is currently in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee. To continue through the legislative process , it must move out of that
committee by May 23rd. Although Assembly Housing removed the builder's remedy provisions, the
increased time for local governments to complete their housing element drafts and the requirements
for HCD to provide specific text and analysis in housing element review letters are still in the bill. These
are two key provisions to ensure local governments have the necessary tools to complete housing
elements and get them certified on time by the state . Should the bill get signed into law, these new
requirements would begin in the 7th RHNA Cycle for nearly all jurisdictions. As a bonus,
Assemblymember Wicks (the current Assembly Appropriations chair) and Assemblymember Haney
(the Assembly Housing chair) signed on as coauthors to the bill , which is significant for our efforts as it
moves through this year's legislative session.
In another positive development, early action by cities and our advocacy efforts in Sacramento
have stopped AB 647 (Gonzalez, M.) and SB 677 (Wiener) from moving forward this year, dying in the
Assembly Local Government and Senate Housing Committee, respectively. AB 647 would have
required local governments to approve up to 8 housing units ministerially in nearly all single-family
zones, so long as only one unit was affordable. The proposal disregarded state-mandated housing
elements and forced local governments to approve this kind of project without environmental review
or public engagement. With the significant elimination of local land use authority, the bill did not
have the votes to get out of the Assembly Local Government committee and missed the deadline,
meaning the bill is done for this year. SB 677 would have drastically expanded SB 9 by nearly
doubling the square footage of units qualifying for ministerial approval on an urban lot split. It also
prohibited local governments from collecting impact fees on projects less than 1,750 square
feet. Both bills could return next year since it is the first year of the two-year session, so we will
continue to watch out for their return.
On SB 634 (Perez), about an hour before the Senate Local Gov Committee met, we got word that
the author committed to significantly narrowing the bill's scope to ensure that providing services to
the unhoused is not criminalized . Given Cal Cities policy that encourages services for homeless
individuals, Cal Cities has now removed opposition. Thanks to everyone who advocated on SB 634 for
your efforts!
And some bad ne ws :
On the flip side, SB 79 (W ie ne r) has made its way to the Senate Appropriations Committee after
"rolling" two chairs. This means that the chair of the committees (Senate Housing and Senate Local
Government) recommended a no vote on the proposal. Still, Senator Wiener got enough committee
votes to overrule the chair's recommendation. SB 79 would require cities to approve transit-oriented
development up to seven stories high and with a density of 120 homes per acre, without regard for
community needs, environmental review, or public input. Additional this bill would upzone the areas
around rail transit or high frequency bus stops that are serviced with dedicated bus lanes; depending
on the type of transit , height limits would then vary from 45 to 75 feet. It also grants full land use
authority to transit agencies without any requirement to build housing on land they own or to consult
with the local government on proposed development projects. Senator Wiener had mentioned in
Senate Local Government that there are incoming amendments to the bill, but Cal Cities has not
seen the proposed language yet on the measure.
2
Both hearings showed just how challenging this bill will be to keep moving out of the Senate: The
Senate Housing Committee took 9 hours before final votes came in to move the bill forward by a
vote of 6-2 with three abstentions. In the Senate Local Government Committee, getting the final vote
took nearly 4 hours before passing 4-3.
Update on bills with position:
Cal Cities Board of Directors officially adopted an Oppose Unless Amended position on AB 306
(Schultz) and a Support Position on AB 87 (Boerner). For AB 306, the decision by the board sets our
final position after the Cal Cities Housing committee recommended a Support Position on the
measure, while the Cal Cities Environmental Quality Committee recommended an Oppose position
on the measure. Here are the amendments the board recommended for AB 306:
1. Ensure that the temporary moratorium provides relief for Los Angeles communities and building
codes for the rebuild are at the time the homes were lost/burned.
2. Allow local reach codes for new construction to continue for cities that would like to continue
progressing with building efficiencies to meet the state's climate goals .
3. Clarify that the home hardening exemption could include hardening measures local
commun ities enact beyond those that are adopted by the Office of the State Fire Marshal .
For AB 87, the Board agreed with Cal Cities Housing committee's recommended Support position on
the measure.
Los Angeles County Division Board approves oppose position on COLR bill
Last month the LA County Division Board of Directors submitted an oppose letter on AB 470
(McKinnor) which would allow a Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) provider to abandon
essential responsibilities and phase out reliable and affordable access to basic telephone service for
all Californians. You can find the Division's opposition letter HERE .
Thank you for reading. Don't forget to check out the webinar details below.
Jeff
Appropriations Watch: Key Bills for Cities
Monday, May 12 • 1 :30-2:30 p.m.
Registration can be completed here by Friday, May 9.
Join Cal Cities' legislative team to learn about bills placed on the
appropriations committees' suspense fi le that could have major impacts on
cities. It is critical that cities act and make their voices heard before the fiscal
deadline on May 23.
3
Registration must be completed by Friday, May 9. This webinar is
complimentary to Cal Cities Members and Cal Cities Partners. Nonmember
cities and other government entities will be charged $150. Please note that
registration is limited.
For questions about how to register for the webinar, please contact M ega n
Dunn . For all other questions, please contact Chris t ina George.
Please review Cal Cities' event and meeting policies.
Jeffrey Kiernan (he/him)
Regional Publi c Affairs Manage r
Los Angel e s County Division
League o f California Cities
Cel l: 310-630 -7505
jkiernan@calcities .org I www.c a lciti es.org
~" CALi'FORNIA ~11 CITIES
Strengthening California Cities
through Advocacy and Education
Twitter I Facebook I You Tube I Lin kedln
LA Cou n ty Div isio n : Facebook I IG
4
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, May 6, 2025 10:31 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Please vote Yes on Item H of the Consent Calendar
I think you have this one.
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 12:37 PM
To: Al Sattler <a1satt1er1892@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Please vote Yes on Item H of the Consent Calendar
Good afternoon Al,
Thank you for taking the time to write the City Council in support on Item Hon the Consent Calendar (AQMD PAR
1111 and 1121).
Your email will be provided to the City Council in advance of tomorrow's meeting.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
aram@rpvca.gov
Phone -{310) 544-5202
Address:
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
DOWNLOAD -. '111,~ ~-'.AJ
'•f'lfl •"i
• Google Play
fhis e mail message contain•; info1111ation belonging to the uty of Rm11 ho Palo, 1/01 des, d1id1 111ay be p, ivileged,
confidPntial, iJncl/01 p,otPct,:,d fiom clisclosme. The infu,mation h intl,nclecl 0111\ tu, u,e of the inrli1.iduill 01 entitv
nc1111erl. Unautho,izec1 clisse11ti11t1tio11, rlist,illution, 01 copyi119 is ,t,idh p1ohibited. If you 1eui1ved this e111ail in ,,,rn,,
01 <11 e not a11 i11te11clecl, ecipie11t, plPc1se 11otify the se11rle1 i111111ecli<1tPlv. lh,:lllk you fo, vot 11 ass ist,mce and
coope, ation.
From: Al Sattler <alsatt1er1892@gmail.com >
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 12:03 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Subject: Please vote Yes on Item H of the Consent Calendar
Some people who r eceived t his message don't often ge t email from a1sattle r l892@gmail.co m . Learn why thi s is i mportant
1 H.
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members,
I am writing to ask you to vote Yes on Consent Calendar Item H at Tuesday's City Council
meeting, to have the Mayor send a letter to the SCAQMD supporting Proposed Amended Rules
1111 and 1121. These Rules, while avoiding mandatory retrofitting, would provide a financial
incentive for homeowners in the SCAQMD region to gradually transition to Zero -emission ,
residential water heaters and HV AC systems. As you probably know, nitrogen oxides (NOx)
are formed when gas and other fuels are burned. The NOx emissions from residential gas water
heaters and space heaters are calculated to be greater than that from oil refineries. Eliminating
NOx emissions from these appliances would substantially reduce air pollution in our
region. This would provide an economic benefit by improving public health, reducing time lost
from work from asthma and reduced immunity to illness.
Heat pump water heaters and HV AC systems are very efficient, and are coming into widespread
use. A number of models are available from several manufacturers. Although the purchase
prices are presently more expensive than some gas appliances, the operating costs are typically
less. As more customers purchase them , the purchase prices will undoubtedly decrease .
Renewable power production on the California electrical grid is rapidly increasing , with large-
scale batteries also being rapidly installed to power the grid for several hours after sunset, so
somewhat increasing electrical power usage would not increase air pollution.
I found the attached Fact Sheet "Myths vs Facts" on the SCAQMD website. It has useful
information.
Please vote to support SCAQMD Rules 1111 and 1121.
Thank you.
Al Sattler
2
3
Bil Myths vs Facts
B Understanding the Proposed Space and Water Heating Appliance Rules (1111/1121)
FACT:
FACT:
FACT:
• Building appliances have been regulated since the late 1970s.
• Concepts for zero-emission technology replacements began
with the 2016 AQMP.
• Proposed rules allow consumer choice between gas units
(e.g ., natura l gas furnace, water heater) and zero -emission
units (e.g., heat pump).
• Manufacturers can continue to offer consumers t he choice of
natural gas units even while sales of zero -emission units are
expected to increase.
MYTH: These proposed rules will not significantly reduce pollution.
FACT:
• The proposed rules are expected to achieve a reduction of 6 t ons
per day of NOx emissions from residential building appliances.
• For context by 2037 :
-Power plants emit 3 tons/day.
-Refineries emit 4 tons/day.
-Passenger vehicles emit 7 tons/day.
✓------
✓-------
✓------
✓--------
MYTH: The new proposed rules were developed quickly without much input from stakeholders.
FACT:
• Proposed rule development has been underway for over
2 years.
• More than 100 stakeholder meetings have contributed to
shaping the rules .
South Coast Air Quality Management District
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-417~
www.aqmd.gov • 1-800-CUT-SMOG™
Stay Connected With Us @SouthCoastAQMD
11 ■■[®]
V1 3/25
I --
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
LC
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, May 6, 2025 10:30 AM
CityC lerk
FW : AQMD Proposed Ru les 1111 and 1121
From: Catherine Jun <cjun@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 1:13 PM
To : Phil Friess <p60friess@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca .gov>
Subject: RE: AQMD Proposed Rules 1111 and 1121
Phil,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on AQMD Proposed Amended Rules 1111 and 1121. Please know that the City
Council is in receipt of your email below. They will consider taking a formal position on the Rules during their next
meeting on 5/6. You are welcome to tune in or make public comment by following the instructions on the meeting
ag.e..o.d..a . Thank you .
Catherine Jun
Deputy City Manager
cjun@rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5203
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275
www.rpvca .gov
DOWNLOAD -'fll.t "<IPV
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,
dist1-ibution, or copying is strictly prot1ibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Phil Friess <p60friess@gmail.com >
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 12 :06 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Subject: AQMD Proposed Rules 1111 and 1121
Some peopl e who received t his message don't often get em ail fro m p60friess@gmail.com . Learn why thi s is important
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members,
1
I urge you to send a letter to the AQMD Board supporting Rules 1111 and 1121, which
would reduce air pollution in our region by reducing NOx emissions and also reduce GHG
emissions.
I installed an electric water heater and electric heat pump at my house in Torrance as part
of electrification and efficiency upgrades that also included solar panels, new windows,
better insulation, an electric induction range and an electric washer/dryer.
Replacement of my gas furnace with an electric heat pump added an air conditioning
function, so my house is now more comfortable than ever before during summer
months. The performance of my electric water heater is the same as my old gas water
heater. I am also very pleased to have eliminated the indoor NOx emissions from my gas
range.
Very truly yours,
Philip Friess
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, May 6, 2025 2:58 PM
christy shahnazarian; CC
Banks; CityClerk
RE : Peafowl trapping
Hello Ms. Shahnazarian,
We will add Ms. Banks email to our late correspondence.
Thank you.
Teri
From: christy shahnazarian <cshazl@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 2:56 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Banks <bianca4b@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fwd: Peafowl trapping
Som e people who received this message don't often get email from cshazl@yahoo.com . Lea rn why this is im po rta nt
Hi Ara,
Can you please add my neighbor Bianca Banks email below to tonights meeting? She lives at 2 Headland
Drive RPV. She's also having a serious problem with the peacock overpopulation on Headland .
Thank you,
Christy Shahnazarian
6 Headland Drive
RPV,Ca
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bianca Banks <bianca4b@yahoo.com >
Subject: Re: Peafowl trapping
Date: May 6, 2025 at 10:57:44 AM PDT
To: cc@rpvca.gov
Good morning, I am writing to express my concern with the growing peafowl population. My
address is 2 Headland Drive and am requesting trapping on my property. Thank you,
Bianca.
1 3
On May 6, 2025, at 10:51 AM, Bianca Banks <bianca4b@yahoo.com > wrote:
Hi I don't see the link ... Can you please resend it?
On May 5, 2025, at 12:56 PM, christy shahnazarian
<cshaz1@yahoo .com > wrote:
Hello Neighbors,
Please read my email below to the city of RPV regarding the
peafowl overpopulation on Headland. The meeting is
tomorrow May 6th. If you have concerns email below before
the meeting.
Christy
Begin forwarded message:
From: christy shahnazarian
<cshaz1@yahoo .com >
Date: May 5, 2025 at 12:07:49 PM PDT
To: cc@rpvca.gov
Cc: Cathi Wyman <whypeople@aol.com >
Subject: Peafowl trapping
Dear City ofRPV,
I am writing on behalf of myself and other
residents of Headland Drive in Rancho
Palos Verdes to express growing concern
about the overpopulation of peafowl in our
area.
Increasing numbers have led to several
challenges, including:
• Property damage ( scratched cars,
gardens destroyed, droppings on
walkways and driveways,furniture
cushions destroyed and roof
damage).
2
• Noise disturbances, especially early
morning and nighttime calls
• Traffic hazards as they freely roam
the streets
• Health concerns related to their
droppings and aggressive behavior,
especially during mating season
We respectfully request that the city
evaluate this issue and consider our
Headland Drive for Peafowl trapping.
Thank you,
Christy Shahnazarian
6 Headland Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes,
Ca 90275
cshaz l@yahoo.com
310-345-5955
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, May 6, 2025 10:30 AM
CityClerk
FW: Peafowl Trapping
From: Catherine Jun <cjun@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 1:30 PM
To: CHRIS ENGEN <ce35@mac.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Peafowl Trapping
Dear Chris,
The City Council is in receipt of your email and will be provided to them as late correspondence.
We appreciate you taking the time to write and share your thoughts on this issue, particularly as it affects your
neighborhood along Headland.
Sincerely,
Catherine Jun
Deputy City Manager
cj~
(310) 544-5203
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
WWW~
DOWNLOAD -,--
0 ·--
IJ1/J '"""'\ n,v ''l';f ' .J ~ •
,_ -
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 ema il in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
-----Original Message -----
From: CHRIS ENGEN <ce35@mac.com >
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 1 :19 PM
To: CC <CC..@rpvca_.gov >
Subject: Peafowl Trapping
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe!!!.
We live at 73 Headland Drive and the large number of peacocks in our area is a serious nuisance.
1 3.
On one afternoon a week ago, we counted 21 peacocks on a neighbor's property. A week or so before that there
were over 1 O on our roof.
They make their annoying calls throughout the night, leave large deposits of poop on our roof and walkways, eat
flowers we try to plant are a danger as we try to drive on our street.
You may think there are not too many in the Sunnyside Ridge area but the truth is Headland Drive is in that area
and they seem to congregate there.
Please, trap some on Headland and give us some peace and quiet.
Thank you.
Chris Engen
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hi Folks!
Russ Bryden
Tuesday, May 6, 2025 3:22 PM
CityClerk
Ramzi Awwad; David Copp
PW Late Correspondence
Geosyntec Contract Draft 2025.05.06 (Final) mh.pdf
Thanks for chatting with me this afternoon and giving me a smile. v' As discussed, Public Works has a
document we'd like to include as late correspondence for tonight's Council meeting. The attached
document replaces the professional services agreement with Geosyntec discussed in Agenda Item
4. The original document did not include consultant initials or signatures. This replacement document
includes initial and one of the two required signatures. It also has a couple of very minor changes to the
agreement language.
Thanks for your help with this. Please let me know if you need anything more from us.
-Russ
Russ Bryden, PE
Principal Engineer
rbryden@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5262
Address:
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
DOWNLOAD -'fflr
# Chnr,,-,:,a.¢,fmtJ:!s,t;
• AppStore
This e-mail rnessage cont21ins i11fon-nation belonging l:o the Uly of RcHKho F',1ios V,\rdes, which may b,1 privileged, confidcntidi, and/or
protocl:ed from disclosure. The i11forrnation is intended only for use of the individual or r:ntity narned. Unauthorized dissemination,
C:istritJution, or copyin9 is st1•ictly prohibited. H you received this ernaii in error, or are not: ,111 intcndcc! 1·ccipient, please notify the
sender irnrnc:cliatc!y. Thank you for your assistance and coopcraUon,
1
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
By and Between
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
and
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS INC
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND
GEOSYNTEC CONSULT ANTS INC
THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES C'Agreement") is made and
entered into on May 6, 2025, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
California municipal corporation ("City") and GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS INC., a Florida
corporation ("Consultant"). City and Consultant may be referred to, individually or collectively,
as "Party" or "Parties.''
RECITALS
A. City has sought, by issuance of a Request for Proposals, the performance of the
services defined and described particularly in Article I of this Agreement.
B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal for the performance of the
services defined and described particularly in Article I of this Agreement, was selected by the
City to perfonn those services.
C. Pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, City has authority
to enter into and execute this Agreement.
D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of
those services defined and described particularly in Article l of this Agreement and desire that
the tenns of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.
OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by
the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULT ANT
1.1 Scope of Services.
In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall
provide those services specified in the "Scope of Services", as stated in the Proposal, attached
hereto as Exhibit ··A" and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein
as the "services" or "work" hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this
Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and
facilities necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough,
competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services
contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its
ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it
shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required
hereunder and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose
intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "highest professional standards" shall mean
those standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work
under similar circumstances.
01,;,03 !JOUliSJ5260 i
1.2 Consultant's Proposal.
The Scope of Service shall include the Consultant's Proposal which shall be incorporated
herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency
between the terms of such Proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall
govern.
1.3 Compliance with Law.
Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder
in accordance with. all ordinances, resolutions, statutes. rules, and regulations of the City and
any Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is
rendered.
1.4 California Labor Law.
If the Scope of Services includes any "public work'' or "maintenance work," as those
terms are defined in California Labor Code section I 720 et seq. and California Code of
Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq., and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more,
Consultant shall pay prevailing wages for such work and comply with the requirements in
California Labor Code section 1770 et seq. and 1810 et seq., and all other applicable laws,
including the following requirements:
(a) Public Work. The Parties acknowledge that some or all of the work to be
performed under this Agreement is a ·'public work'' as defined in Labor Code Section 1720 and
that this Agreement is therefore subject to the requirements of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter l
(commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code relating to public works contracts
and the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations (""DIR")
implementing such statutes. The work performed under this Agreement is subject to compliance
monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Consultant shall post job site notices, as prescribed by
regulation.
(b) Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall pay prevailing wages to the extent
required by Labor Code Section 1771. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the
prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any
interested party on request. By initiating any work under this Agreement, Consultant
acknowledges receipt of a copy of the DIR determination of the prevailing rate of per diem
wages, and Consultant shall post a copy of the same at each job site where work is performed
under this Agreement.
(c) Penalty for Failure to Pay Prevailing: Wages. Consultant shall comply with
and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment
of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The
Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit $200 (two hundred dollars) for each calendar
day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the
DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to
this Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor.
2
(d) Pavroll Record s . Consultant shall comp ly with and be bound by the
provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Consultant and each subconsu ltan t to:
keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of petjury, as
specified in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records availab le for inspection as
provided by Section l 776; and inform the City of the location of the records.
(e) Apprentices. Consu lt ant sha ll comply with and be bound by the provisions
of Labor Code Sections 1777 .5, 1777.6 , and 1777.7 and Ca liforni a Code of Regulations Title 8,
Section 200 et seq. concerning the emp loym ent of apprentices on public works projects.
Consultant sha ll be responsible for comp lianc e with these aforementioned Sections for all
apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Consultant shall
provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program .
Within 60 (sixty) days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant and each of
its subconsultants sha l I submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice
hours performed under this Agreement.
(f) Eight-Ho ur Work Day. Consu ltant acknow ledges that 8 (eight) hours labor
constitutes a legal day's work. Consultant shall comp ly with and be bound by Labor Code
Section 1810.
(g) Penalties for Excess Hours. Consu ltant shall comp ly with and be bound by
the provisions of Labor Code Section 181 3 concerning penalties for workers who work excess
hours . The Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit $25 (twenty five dollars for each
worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Consultant or by any
subcontractor for each ca lendar day during which such worker is requ ired or permitted to work
more than 8 (eight) hours in any one ca lend ar day and 40 (forty) hours in any one ca lendar week
in vio lation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter I, Article 3 of the Labor Code.
Pursuant to Labor Code section 1815 , work performed by emp loyees of Consultant in excess of 8
(eight) hours per day, and 40 (forty) hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public
work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than one
and I ½ (one and one half) time s the basic rate of pay.
(h) Workers ' Compensation. Ca li fornia Labor Code Sect ion s 1860 and 3700
provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to it s
employees if it has emp loyees. In accordance with the provisions of Ca li fornia Labor Code
Section 1861, Consultant certifies as fol lows:
··J am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require
every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to
undertake se lf-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I wi ll
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of
this contract."
Consu lt ant's Authorized Initials ~
(i) Consultant's Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor
who will perform work under this Agreement, Consu lt ant sha ll be responsible for such
01203 000 1/835260 I 3
subcontractor's compliance with Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720)
of the California Labor Code, and shall make such compliance a requirement in any contract
with any subcontractor for work under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to take all
actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor's compliance,
including without limitation, conducting a review of the certified payroll records of the
subcontractor on a periodic basis or upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to
pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Consultant shall diligently take
corrective action to halt or rectify any such failure by any subcontractor.
1.5 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments.
Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals
as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement.
Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus
applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary
for the Consultant's performance of the services required by this Agreement, and shall
indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any
such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City
hereunder.
1.6 Familiarity with Work.
By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly
investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered
how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and
restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve
work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or
will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services
hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will
materially affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform
the City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant's risk until written instructions
are received from the Contract Officer in the form of a Change Order.
1.7 Care of Work.
The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to
furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents,
plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be
responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City,
except such losses or damages as may be caused by City's own negligence.
1.8 Further Responsibilities of Parties.
Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective
obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all
instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry
4
out the purposes of th is Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shal I be responsible
for the service of the other.
1.9 Additional Services
City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without
invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services
or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be
undertaken unless a written Change Order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant,
incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the extra
work, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the
written approval of the Consultant.
Any increase in compensation ofup to 15% (fifteen percent) of the Contract Sum; or, in
the time to perform of up to 90 (ninety) days, may be approved by the Contract Officer through a
written Change Order. Any greater increases, taken either separately or cumulatively, must be
approved by the City Council. It is expressly understood by Consultant that the provisions of this
Section shall not apply to services specifically set forth in the Scope of Services. Consultant
hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to be provided pursuant to the
Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than Consultant anticipates and that
Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor. City may in its sole and
absolute discretion have similar work done by other Consultants. No claims for an increase in the
Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the procedures established in this
Section are followed.
If in the performance of the Services, the Contractor becomes aware of material defects
in the Scope of Work, duration, or span of the Services, or the Contractor becomes aware of
extenuating circumstance that will or could prevent the completion of the Services, on time or on
budget, the Contractor shall inform the City's Contract Officer of an anticipated Change Order.
This proposed change order will stipulate the facts surrounding the issue, proposed solutions,
proposed costs, and proposed schedule impacts.
1.10 Special Requirements.
Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof
are set forth in the "Special Requirements" attached hereto as Exhibit ·•B" and incorporated
herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit ··Ir and any
other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit ··Ir shall gov em.
ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.
2.1 Contract Sum.
Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the
amounts specified in the ··Schedule of Compensation" attached hereto as Exhibit ··c· and
incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for
actual expenses, shall not exceed 5398,600 (Three Hundred Ninety-Eight Thousand, Six
5
Hundred Dollars) (the "Contract Sum"). unless additional compensation is approved pursuant
to Section 1.9.
2.2 Method of Com pcnsation.
(a) The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon
completion; (ii) payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of
the services; (iii) payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant's rates as specified
in the Schedule of Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the
performance of sub tasks, and (b) the Contract Sum is not exceeded; or (iv) such other methods
as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation.
(b) A retention of I 0% sh al I be held from each payment as a contract retention to be
paid as part of the final payment upon satisfactory and timely completion of services. This
retention shall not apply for on-call agreements for continuous services or for agreements for
scheduled routine maintenance of City property or City facilities.
2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.
Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for
reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in
advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.5,
and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the
attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City.
Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If
Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant
shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings.
2.4 Invoices.
Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice, using the City template.
or in a format acceptable to the City, for all work performed and expenses incurred during the
preceding month in a form approved by City's Director of Finance. By submitting an invoice for
payment under this Agreement, Consultant is ce1iifying compliance with all provisions of the
Agreement. The invoice shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the
following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel. materials. equipment, supplies, and sub-
contractor contracts. Sub-contractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant
shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person.
City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine
whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this
Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant
which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will use its best efforts to cause
Consultant to be paid within 45 (forty-tive) days of receipt of Consultant's correct and
undisputed invoice; however, Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run
procedures, the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the
event any charges or expenses are disputed by City. the original invoice shall be returned by City
6
to Consultant for correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice
provided by the Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided
herein or any applicable law.
2.5 Waiver.
Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be
deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.
ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
3.1 Time of Essence.
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
3.2 Schedule of Performance.
Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a
written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in
the "Schedule of Performance" attached hereto as Exhibit ··rr and incorporated herein by this
reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time period(s) specified in the
Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer through a Change
Order, but not exceeding 60 (sixty) days cumulatively.
3.3 Force Majeure.
The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Perfo1mance for performance of the
services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shal 1 be extended because of any delays due to
unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant
including, but not restricted to. acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather,
fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes,
wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant
shall within 10 (ten) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in
writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of
delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when
and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer's
determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall
Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of
this Agreement, however caused, Consultant's sole remedy being extension of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section.
3.4 Term.
Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement
shall continue in full force and etlect until completion of the services but not exceeding one year
except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit ·"IJ").
7
ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK
4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant.
The following principals of Consultant ( .. Principals") are hereby designated as being the
principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the
work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:
Mark Hanna. PhD. PE
(Name)
Daniel Lee. PE. CCM
(Name)
Vice President, Senior Principal
(Title)
Senior Principal
(Title)
It is expressly understood that the experience. knowledge, capability and reputation of the
foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.
Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for
directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the
services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be
under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the
foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced
by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize
only the personnel included in the Proposal to perform services pursuant to this Agreement.
Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of
Consultant's staff and subcontractors, if any. assigned to perform the services required under this
Agreement. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant's staff and subcontractors,
if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any
such performance. City shall have the right to approve or reject any proposed replacement
personnel, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
4.2 Status of Consultant.
Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation,
debt or liability of any kind on behalfofor against City. whether by contract or otherwise, unless
such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in
writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or
any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers,
employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant's officers, employees or
agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may
otherwise accrue to City's employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may
have to any such rights.
/ / /
I/ I
8
4.3 Contract Officer.
The Contract Officer shall be Russ Bryden, Principal Engineer, or such person as may be
designated by the Director of Public Works. It shall be the Consultant's responsibility to assure
that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and
the Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer.
Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the
approval of the Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in
writing by the City Manager, to sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to
carry out the terms of this Agreement.
4.4 Independent Consultant.
Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode
or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein,
except as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge,
supervision or control of Consultant's employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing
their number, compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required
herein as an independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly
independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant
shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are
agents or employees of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed
to be a pa11ner of Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any
joint enterprise with Consultant.
4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.
The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant its principals and
employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore.
Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services
required hereunder without the express written approval of the City; all subcontractors included
in the Proposal are deemed approved. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein
may be transferred, assigned. conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered voluntarily or by operation
of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise. without the prior written approval of
City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons
acting in conceit of more 25% (twenty five percent) of the present ownership and/or control of
Consultant, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. In the event of any such
unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No
approved transfer shall release the Consultant or any surety of Consultant of any liability
hereunder without the express consent of City.
ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
5.1 Insurance Coverages.
Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City. and prior to commencement of
any services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own
9
expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts
described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
(a) General liabilitv insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01,
in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily
injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that
has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO "•insured contract" language
will not be accepted.
(b) Automobile liabilitv insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile
insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury
and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with
Services to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-
owned or rented vehicles. in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each
accident.
(c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall
maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection
with this Agreement in the minimum amount of $1,000.000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any
policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this
Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than
three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement.
(d) Workers· compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers'
Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer's Liability Insurance (with limits of at
least $1,000,000).
(e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds
under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated
herein.
(t) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required
in the Special Requirements in Exhibit ·'8".
5.2 General Insurance Requirements.
(a) Proo!' of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to
City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation
endorsement for workers' compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be
approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification
of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any
time.
10
(b) Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the
duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to
property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services hereunder
by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants.
(c) Primarv/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be
primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required
to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination
of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or
be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-
contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City's own insurance or self-insurance shall
be cal led upon to protect it as a named insured.
(d) Citv·s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required
under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced.
City has the right but not the duty to obtain and continuously maintain the insurance it deems
necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will
withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative. City
may cancel this Agreement.
(e) Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance
company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance
or that is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an
assigned policyholders' Rating of A-(or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger)
in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by
the City's Risk Manager.
(t) Waiver of subro!rntion. All insurance coverage maintained or procured
pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City. its elected or
appointed officers. agents, officials. employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow
Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to
waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery
against City. and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of
its subconsultants.
(g) Enforcement or contract provisions (non-estoppcl). Consultant
acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform
Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the
City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
(h) Requirements nol limitin!.!.. Requirements of specific coverage features or
limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other
requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific
reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given
issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other
coverage. or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums
shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained
11
by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits
of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
(i) Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or
broker and insurers to provide to City with a 30 (thirty) day notice of cancellation (except for
nonpayment for which a IO (ten) day notice is required) or nonrencwal of coverage for each
required coverage.
U) Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be
endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers
shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any
excess/umbrella liability policies.
(k) Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages
required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting
endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved ofin writing.
(I) Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for
all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer"s limits of
liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.
(m) Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants,
subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in
the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements
required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes
all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements
of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants,
subcontractors. and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
(n) Agencv·s right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any
time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by
giving the Consultant 90 (ninety) days advance written notice of such change. If such change
results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant the City and Consultant may renegotiate
Consultant's compensation.
(o) Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to
and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated,
lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these
specifications unless approved by City.
(p) Timelv notice or claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant's performance
under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required
liability policies.
12
(q) Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be
necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.
5.3 Indemnification.
To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents ("'Indemnified Parties'') against. and will
hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial,
administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims. damages to persons or property, losses, costs,
penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities vvhcther actual or threatened (herein ··claims
or liabilities") that may be asserted or claimed by any person. firm or entity arising out of or in
connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein
of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or
entity for which Consultant is legally liable ('•indemnitors"), or arising from Consultant's or
indemnitors' reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant's or indemnitors'
negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision. covenant or condition of this
Agreement, and in connection therewith:
(a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any
of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and
attorneys' tees incurred in connection therewith;
(b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its
officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabi Ii ties arising out of or in connection
with the negligent performance of or failure to perfonn such work, operations or activities of
Consultant hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and
employees harmless therefrom;
(c) In the event the City, its officers. agents or employees is made a pa1iy to
any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims
arising out ofor in connection with the negligent performance ofor failure to perform the work,
operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers,
agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or
employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys'
fees.
Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if
it fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and
failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall not be a waiver hereof. This
indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or
omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional
services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring
as a result of City's sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent
permitted by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City's negligence,
except that design professionals' indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities
arising out of the neg! igence, recklessness or willful rn isconduct of the design professional. The
13
indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive
termination of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 6. RECORDS. REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION
6.1 Records.
Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of
accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the
disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the "books and records"), as
shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract
Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete
and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all
times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect. copy, audit and make
records and transcripts from such records. Such records shal I be maintained for a period of three
(3) years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such
records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant's business,
custody of the books and records may be given to City. and access shall be provided by
Consultant's successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above. the Consultant shall fully
cooperate with the City in providing access to the books and records if a public records request is
made and disclosure is required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records
Act.
6.2 Reports.
Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports
concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer
shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost
of work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant
agrees that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that
may or will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein
or, if Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant
shall promptly notiry the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance. technique or event and the
estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design
services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed.
6.3 Ownership of Documents.
All drawings, specifications, maps, designs. photographs. studies, surveys, data, notes,
computer files. reports, records, documents and other materials (the ·'documents and materials'')
prepared by Consultant. its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this
Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the
Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement. and Consultant shall have no claim
for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full
rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any
use, reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of
14
uncompleted documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the
City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant's guarantee and warranties
shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such
documents for its own use. Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein.
All subcontractors shall provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared
by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify
City for all damages resulting therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents
and materials that may qualify as "works made for hire .. as defined in l 7 U.S.C. § IO I, such
documents and materials are hereby deemed "works made for hire" for the City.
6.4 Confidcntialitv and Release of Information.
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in
performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the
public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such
info1mation or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written
authorization from the Contract Officer.
(b) Consultant its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, sh al I not
without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City
Attorney. voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at
depositions, response to interrogatories or other infonnation concerning the work performed
under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered ··voluntary ..
provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
(c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of
Consultant. provides any info1mation or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City
shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and
fees. including attorney's fees. caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant's conduct.
(d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice
of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories. request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work
performed there under. City retains the right. but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be
present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully
with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests
provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean
the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION
7.1 California Law.
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to
performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions
concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be
15
instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles. State of California, or any other
appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal
jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District
Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los
Angeles. State ot'California.
7.2 Disputes; Default.
In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms ot'this Agreement, the City shall
not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed
after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the
reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the
default. This timeframe is 15 (fifteen) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if
circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold
all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the
alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding
invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take
necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part of the City
to give notice of the Consultant's default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City's
legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.
7.3 Retention of Funds.
Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant
(whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in
dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs. liabilities. or
damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by
reason of Consultant's acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant's
obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount
or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear
to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for
interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of
City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of
the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.
7,4 Waiver.
Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this
Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any
party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a ,vaiver of any other
provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement.
Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of
the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by
a non-defaulting patty on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a
waiver. Any waiver by either patty of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of
any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
16
7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.
Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this
Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party
of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or
different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the
other pai1y.
7.6 Legal Action.
In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in
equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel
specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain
any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary
provision herein. Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections
905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.
7.7 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term.
This Section shall govern any termination of this Contract except as specifically provided
in the following Section for tennination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this
Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Consultant,
except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be
such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. Upon receipt of any notice of
tennination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be
specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for
all services rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of tennination and for any services
authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation
or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the
event of termination without cause pursuant to this Section, the City need not provide the
Consultant with the opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.
7.8 Termination for Default of Partv.
If termination is due to the failure of the other Party to fulfill its obligations under this
Agreement:
(a) City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work
and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable
to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the
compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate
such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off
or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.
(b) Consultant may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, tenninate the
Agreement upon written notice to the Citys Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to
payment for all work performed up to the date of termination.
17
7.9 Attornevs' Fees.
If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any
action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such
action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or
equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's
fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to al! other
reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and al! other
necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be
deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or
not such action is prosecuted to judgment.
ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFlCERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION
8.1 Non-liabilih1 of Cin· Officers and Emplovces.
No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any
successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which
may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the
terms of this Agreement.
8.2 Conflict of Interest.
Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm. has or shall
acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests
of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant's performance of services under this
Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person
having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor
without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times
avoid conf1icts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City
in the performance of this Agreement.
No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in
this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the
Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation,
partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any
State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay
or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.
8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination.
Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns. and all persons
claiming under or through them. that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation ot~
any person or group of persons on account of race, color. creed, re! igion, sex. gender, sexual
orientation, marital status. national origin, ancestry or other protected class in the performance of
this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed
and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race. color, creed.
iJI 18
religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other
protected class.
8.4 Unauthorized Aliens.
Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., as amended, and in connection
therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ
such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this
Agreement, and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of
unauthorized aliens, Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such
liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys' fees,
incurred by City.
ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
9.1 Notices.
Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval. or communication either
pat1y desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and
either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City
Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 and in
the case of the Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of
this Agreement. Either party may change its address by notifying the other patty of the change of
address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in
72 (seventy two) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this section.
9.2 Interpretation.
The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the
language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship
of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.
9.3 Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.
9.4 Integration; Amendment.
This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive
expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements
between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels
any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings. if any, between
the pat1ies, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification
of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by
19
the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be
waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.
9.5 Severability.
In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs , or
sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid
judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall
not affect any of the remaining phrases , sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this
Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent
of the pa1iies hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives
either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless .
9.6 Warrantv & Representation of Non-Collusion.
No official, officer, or employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in
this Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision
relating to this Agreement which may affect his/her financial interest or the financial interest of
any corporation, partnership , or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or
in violation of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly
interested , or in violation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of
;·financial interest" shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be
··remote" or ;'non interests" pursuant to Government Code Sections I 09 l or I 09 I .5. Consultant
warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and ,Nill not pay or give, to any third party
including, but not limited to, any City official , officer, or employee , any money, consideration,
or other thing of value as a result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement .
Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s),
omission(s). or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money,
consideration , or other thing of value to any third party including , but not limited to , any City
official, officer , or employee, as a result of consequence of pbtaining or bein g awarded any
agreement. Consultant is aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other
conduct resulting in ,such payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render
this Agreement void and ofno force or effect.
Consultant's Authorized Initials ~
9.7 Corporate Authoritv.
The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the partie s hereto warrant that (i) s uch
party is duly organized and existing , (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this
Agreement on behalf of said party , (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally
bound to the provisions of this Agreement , and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not
violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall
be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties.
(SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGEJ
0 12ll3 000 I /8352 60 I 20
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreeme nt 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
Dave Brad ley , Mayor
CONSULT ANT:
By:_-'-.....,,_..._,_....,,.._-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ ---_-_ -_-_:-__:-__ _
Name: Mark H 1a , PhD , PE
Tit le: Vice President
By: ____________ _
Name: Greg Corcoran, PE
Title: Assistant Secretary
Address: I 03 I S. Broadway, Ste 300, Los Angeles
CA 90015
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required
from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2)
Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT'S
SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE
INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR
OTHER RULES OR REGlJLATIO~S APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT'S BlJSINESS ENTITY.
01 203 000 1/835260 I 2 1
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certif1cate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFOR\/IA
COC~TY OF LOS ANGELES
On . 2023 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 PE"JAL 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:
OPTIO~AL
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 CLAL\-IED BY SIG:'IER
0 INDfVIDLJAL
0 CORPORATE OFFICER
□
□
□
□
□
□
PART"-IER(Sl
GENERAL
TITLE(S)
Ll:VIITED
ATTORNEY -1'-i-FACT
TRLSTEC:(Sl
GUARDIAi\/CO'.'JSERVATOR
SIG/\iER IS REPRESENTl:'ilG:
(:'JAME OF PERSON(Sl OR E\JTITY(IES))
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
i\U:VlBER OF PAGES
DATE: OF DOCC:V!!ci\T
SIGNER(S) OTHER HIA.i\ i\A\!!ED 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 ce1·tificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
ST/\ TE OF CALIFORNIA
COC:--ITY OF LOS At-;GELES
On 2023 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 pcrson(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature:
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
T!TLE(S)
LIMITED PARTNER(S) 0
GENERAL
ATTORr'iEY-1'-l·FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GL;ARDIANiCONSERVATOR
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(Sl OR ENTITY{lES))
DESCRIPTIO:--i OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMEl\T
NLMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. Consultant will perform the following Services:
TASK 0-PROJECT MANAGEMENT (~24 WEEKS)
Geosyntec will conduct general project management, coordination, and administration
associated with project delivery of Phase 1 (Tasks O through 4 and 7) services according to the
baseline schedule for a duration of approximately 24 weeks. The project management tasks
include:
• Virtual kick-off meeting including meeting agenda and notes; attendance from Geosyntec
will include Project Director (Mark Hanna), Project Manager (Daniel Lee), Project
Engineer (Sam Hwang), and Drainage Study Task Lead (Al Preston)
• Up to six monthly virtual coordination/progress meetings including meeting agenda and
notes; Geosyntec attendance will include Project Manager and Project Engineer.
• Up to 12 bi-weekly status reports; the status reports, approximately two pages of
information, will provide updates on project progress, budget status, schedule, and key
issues.
• Up to six monthly project schedule updates; the baseline critical-path-method schedule
(prepared in Microsoft Project) from the proposal efforts will be updated with completed
activities and new schedule logic or activities as needed.
Per the Request for Qualifications for this Project (elated October 23, 2024) and the
sample Professional Services Agreement (Article 2.2), the method of compensation will be fixed
fee payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of services. Per
the Professional Services Agreement (Article 2.4), invoices will be submitted monthly in a
format acceptable to the City. Geosyntec will develop a schedule of values, mutually agreed
upon by the City and Geosyntec for invoicing.
Task O will be invoiced monthly. Based on the City and project's needs through the
completion of Phase 1, the scope and fees for Task O may be re-negotiated to account for any
additional effort required in Phase 2 (Tasks 5, 6, and 8).
GENERAL SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS FOR ALL TECHNICAL TASKS BELOW:
Unless noted otherwise, Geosyntec will address one round of consolidated comments
from the City and the City's selected reviewers. To maintain the aggressive schedule,
consolidated comments will be provided to Geosyntec within one week of each deliverable that
are critical path tasks, and within three weeks for non-critical path tasks.
Publicly available data, and/or data received from the City, County, or elsewhere will be
deemed accurate and complete. Geosyntec will review data received for reasonableness and will
work to fill gaps, if identified, and is not responsible for ensuring completeness or overall
accuracy of data received.
TASK 1-DRAINAGE AND DEVELOPMENT STUDY
Task 1.1 -Data Collection and Review
Geosyntec will review received and publicly available data/documents through Los
Angeles County Public Works (LACPW) web portals (e.g. design construction plans, storm
drain maps) and make specific data requests to LACPW as appropriate. In addition to our
independent desktop research, Geosyntcc will compile and transmit a data request list to the City,
including requests for as-built/record drawings for nearby developments or major capital
improvements, technical models or studies. GIS database with relevant spatial datasets (e.g. storm
drain infrastructure, land-use), historical topographic maps, known surface water migration
locations. and previous survey/elevation datasets in the project vicinity). Received data will be
reviewed and synthesized into a memorandum.
As part of data collection and review, Geosyntec will conduct a field reconnaissance to
assess existing conditions and drainage patterns to inform the hydrologic and hydraulic
assessment. Site reconnaissance is expected to occur over several days and may include
participation with City staff and/or representatives from the hazard abatement districts.
Approximately 80 hours of personnel time are estimated to complete the necessary field
reconnaissance including visit preparations, coordination, travel time, and field investigations.
Task 1.1 Deliverable: Data Summary Memo
Task 1.2 -Time line Summarv of Development
Geosyntec will review publicly available and received documents (per data request to
LACPW and the City) to develop a timeline summary of residential, commercial, and
institutional developments in the Landslide Complex and its larger contributing watershed. The
project team will use paid and publicly available historical imagery (e.g. FrarneFinder, NearMap,
Google Earth) to assess and assign approximate timelines to general developments in the
contributing watersheds. Geosyntec will qualitatively assess historical images representing up to
six time periods (e.g. every 20 years back from present-day), and/or specific periods of advanced
development, which will be selected based on adequate resolution and coverage of the
contributing watersheds, to develop a general timeline for major areas of urbanization.
Task 1.2 Deliverable: Development Time line Summary
Task 1.3-Hvclrologic and Hvdraulic Assessment
Geosyntec will delineate and characterize the Landslide Complex's sub-watersheds (e.g.,
drainage areas, imperviousness, flow paths) for both pre-development (0% imperviousness) and
post-development (present-day) urbanization, developing drainage maps for each condition, and
highlighting major alterations in surface runoff paths. Geosyntec will utilize the earliest historical
image from Task 1.2 and historical topographic maps from Task 1.1 to inform pre-development
watershed extents and major surface runoff paths. The pre-development condition will be assessed
assuming no urbanization and delineated for drainages that outlet into the Landslide Complex
through washes, swales, and historic canyons. Underlying soils, characterized per the LA County
soils maps, will be assumed unchanged for pre and post development conditions. Lateral and
vertical shifts in soils resulting from land movement are expected to have insignificant effects on
the soil parameterization necessary for the hydrologic assessment.
Geosyntec will develop hydrologic and hydraulic models using PC-SWMM 1. The models will be
run using 2, I 0, 25, 50, 100-year. 24-hour design storm events (as defined by the LA County
Hydrology manual) for pre-and post-development conditions. A continuous simulation will also
be performed for a recent JO-year period that will enable quantification <~{ flows and volumes
over the recent past. Conveyance elements (e.g. pipes, channels) will be modeled per record
drawings, previous models, and technical reports received or obtained from data requests. The
H&H models will include major conveyance elements and only model storm drains equal to or
greater than 24-inches in diameter.
The results of the H&H modeling will be summarized in a technical memorandum. The
H&H memo will identify key points of' discharge into the Landslide Complex and assess
modeled changes in hydrologic outputs (e.g. peak flow, runoff volume, time of concentration)
resulting from development. Upon completion of the Scope of Services, Geosyntec will provide
electronic copies of the H&H models to the City.
Task 1.3 Deliverables: Drainage Study Memo and electronic model files
Task 1.4 -H&H Model Update with Surface Fractures/Cracks
Evidence suggests that there are unusually large surface fractures or cracks potentially
related to the existing landslide movements that may impact the drainage analysis. It will be
necessary to add these elements in the H&H model as hydraulic features (e.g .. as storage and/or
infiltration elements), and this effoit may require additional investigations (e.g., field survey or
measurements). Following completion of the field reconnaissance task (Task 1.1 ), Geosyntec will
work with the City to develop an appropriate scope, budget, and schedule for this work. A contract
amendment will be necessary once agreed upon by Geosyntec and City.
Task 1.5 -H&H Model Update with Flow Monitoring and Model Calibration
To validate and increase confidence in the base H&H model, the model will be calibrated
with measured flowrates and rain events. This will require the installation of flow monitoring
instrumentation at key outlets corresponding to the H&H model setup. In general, a larger set of
data points will result in better model calibration. The flow data collection effo1t can be an ongoing
effort that may take multiple years and can be set up as pennanent instrumentation if desired by
the City. Following completion of the base H&H model task (Task 1.3), Geosyntec will work with
the City to develop an appropriate scope, budget, and schedule for this work. A contract
amendment will be necessary once agreed upon by Geosyntec and City.
TASK 2 -PROJECT CONCEPT REPORT
Task 2.1 -Recommendations and Estimates
Geosyntec will develop up to three planning-level concepts (e.g., schematic layouts or
conceptual drawings) and rough order of magnitude cost opinions for alternatives that reduce
storm water runoff and infiltration into the Landslide Complex. Up to four 11 x 17 conceptual
plans will be prepared to convey each alternative concept (up to a total of 12 conceptual plans for
the three alternative concepts). The exhibits will consist of conceptual site plans with approximate
locations and sizes of proposed infrastructure and typical cross sections and/or details of key
infrastructure elements. No specifications are assumed for concept development. These
alternatives will be developed in close collaboration with the City to present meaningful
alternatives. The developed alternatives will aim to incorporate and reflect the findings of Task 1
with an emphasis on mitigating or otherwise managing contributing surface runoff at or close to
its source. Rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost opinions will be prepared for each alternative.
Concepts and cost opinions will be summarized and submitted to the City in a Draft Project
Concept Report.
The Draft Project Concept Report will also include high-level discussions of real estate
needs, potential utility conflicts, and permitting requirements as described in Tasks 3, 4, and 7.
Note that following selection of the preferred alternative Geosyntec will need to refine the
concept and issue a Final Project Concept Report, implementing comments received, as initial
actions under Future Phase 2. Geosyntec will work with the City to develop an appropriate scope,
budget, and schedule for this work. A contract amendment will be necessary once agreed upon
by Geosyntec and City.
Task 2.1 Deliverables: Draft Project Concept Report
Task 2.2 -Presentation to Citv Council
2.2.1 -Geosyntec will prepare and deliver one summary presentation and one summary report
summarizing the findings and alternatives of the Draft Project Concept Report to be presented to
the City Council and relevant stakeholders (e.g. Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee).
Task 2.2 Deliverables:
• one summary presentation of the Draft Project Concept Report
• one summary ~two-page report
• one virtual presentation to City Council and stakeholders up to three hours; Geosyntec
attendance will include Project Director and Project Manager, and additional Geosyntec
experts will be available depending on topic. Geosyntec will be able to accommodate an
in-person component for this presentation if the format changes.
TASK 3 -PROPERTY AND EASEMENT NEEDS
Publicly available parcel maps (e.g., LA County Assessor Maps, LA County Records of
Survey, Tract Maps, etc.) will be reviewed to support the development of the three concept
alternatives in Task 2. Real estate needs for each concept alternative will be discussed in the
Draft Project Concept Repo1i.
Task 3 Deliverable: Incorporated as discussion within Draft Project Concept Report
TASK 4 -UTILITY RESEARCH
Based on publicly and readily available data, Geosyntec will review available utility
records to support the development of the three concept alternatives in Task 2. For the initial
concept alternatives, known existing utilities will be summarized and plotted on the concept
plans for the Draft Project Concept Report.
To understand the viability of the alternatives, utility records requests will be submitted
to utility owners in the project area for all three concept alternatives. Up to three attempts will be
made to request utility records via e-mail. A communications log of cotTespondence with utility
owners will be maintained in an Excel spreadsheet.
Task 4 Deliverables:
• Known utility information to be incorporated as a discussion and plotted on the alternative
concepts within Draft Project Concept Report
• Log of correspondence with utility owners
TASK 5-CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY (FUTURE PHASE 2 SCOPE)
Upon selection of the preferred alternative as described in Task 2 (Final Project Concept
Report), it is assumed that scope and budget for cultural resources study (Task 5) will be
negotiated to fit the specific selected alternative needs.
Upon selection of a preferred alternative project, Geosyntec will conduct a records search
to identify areas of sign i ticance for Native American heritage and notify Tribal contacts that may
have further information regarding the Project area. This task assumes that the City will lead and
conduct any formal consultation with Tribal contacts and Geosyntec will be informed of the
outcomes through summary notes or other means. Geosyntec has excluded any budget for
participation in Tribal consultations.
Upon completing the records search activity, a qualified archaeologist will conduct one
field survey of the project area. Then, a cultural resources report will be prepared in accordance
with Section I 06 of the National Historic Preservation Act. It is assumed that the results of the
field survey will be negative and that no built environment exists within the Project area
requiring evaluation. Should results identify resources requiring evaluation and reporting,
Geosyntec can lead these efforts at additional cost.
CEQA Initial Assessment including technical studies and other environmental studies are
excluded from scope and can be provided at additional costs if requested.
Task 5 Deliverable: Cultural Resources Study
TASK 6 -PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES (FUTURE PHASE 2 SCOPE)
Upon selection of the preferred alternative as described in Task 2 (Project Concept
Report), it is assumed that scope and budget for design (Task 6) will be negotiated to fit the
speci fie selected alternative needs.
Task 6. l -Geotechnical/Geolo!!ical Evaluation
It is assumed that geotechnical/geological evaluation may be required to support the
design of proposed improvements, and this evaluation may require geotechnical assessment. This
evaluation will include general background geology and geotechnical recommendations for
proposed improvements.
The proposed geotechnical scope will be based on available and existing relevant site
information, Geosyntec's team will identify the geotechnical opportunities and constraints to
serve as input parameters that can be incorporated into the selected alternative. Geosyntec will
perform a desktop level evaluation that includes assessment of groundwater levels, subsurface
conditions, liquefaction susceptibility, and other general geotechnical and soils parameters that
can be used as preliminary inputs to proposed improvements to facilitate future focused
assessments. In support of this task, Geosyntec will review documents provided by the City as
well as publicly avai I able information relevant to the assessment of the potential geohazards.
Geosyntec will utilize publicly available resources such as the California Geologic Survey (CGS)
Seismic Hazard Zone Maps and Seismic Hazards Reports for the Site, CGS geologic and
geohazard online Maps, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)'s GeoTracker online
database, Solid Waste Information Management System online database, available Hazard Maps,
and site-specific documents prepared by others for the City. Using this information, Geosyntec
will perform a desktop level assessment of potential geohazards present at up to two project
locations including strong ground shaking, surface fault rupture, landsliding and slope stability,
potential for expansive and collapsible soils, etc. Depending on the selected alternative,
geotechnical evaluation may require field investigations, laboratory analysis, etc.
Task 6.1 Deliverable: Geotechnical Memorandum
Task 6.2 -Land Survev
Land survey of proposed project locations will be required to support the detailed design
of proposed improvements. Geosyntec will lead this effort and help identify and select a
preferred vendor to support this effort.
Task 6.2 Deliverable: Stamped and signed survey.
Task 6.3 -Civil Design
Geosyntec will prepare 50%, 90%, and final plans, specifications, and estimates for the
selected alternative. Geosyntec will provide general civil and minor structural design to develop
construction documents for permitting, contractor bidding, and construction. The following
assumptions are made for this scope:
• ·'Greenbook'' specifications will be referenced as the primary technical specifications.
• City will provide "front-end" specifications and bid forms. The construction documents
will add front-end specifications and bid fonns at 90% design submittal.
• Standard Plans from either the City or Standard Plans for Public Works Constructions will
be utilized where applicable.
• City comments on the 50% design submittal will be addressed in the 90% design submittal.
City comments on the 90% submittal will be addressed in the Final design submittal. No
comments are assumed for the Final design submittal.
• Cost estimates will be , prepared in accordance with AACE (Association for the
Advancement of Cost Engineering) International recommended practices.
• Note that additional easement, utility and permitting efforts will be required and can be
discussed when Task 6 is Lmder further development.
Task 6.3 Deliverables:
• 50% plans, specifications. and cost estimate
• 90% plans, specifications, and cost estimate
• Final plans, specifications. and cost estimate
TASK 7 -PERMITTING RESEARCH (PHASE 1 SCOPE)
Geosyntec will identify necessary project approvals and permits for the three concept
alternatives developed in Task 2. The identified permits will be listed in the Draft Project
Concept Report.
Task 7 Deliverables:
• Identified project approvals and permits incorporated as discussion within the Draft Project
Concept Report
TASK 8-CONSTRUCTION PROCUREMENT (FUTURE PHASE 2 SCOPE)
Upon selection of the preferred alternative as described in Task 2 (Project Concept
Report), it is assumed that scope and budget for construction procurement (Task 8) will be
negotiated to fit the specific selected alternative needs.
Geosyntec wil I prepare the construction procurement (bid) documents, conduct contractor
bid and review, and recommend a construction contract award for the City to execute. Geosyntec
can develop a list of qualified contractors and engage them for a better turnout of quality and
competitive bids for the City. Per schedule, contractor bidding will begin with final design
submittal. Bid addenda may need to be issued during the bid period to reflect approved plan sets.
Task 8 Deliverables:
• Bid documents (Final plans and specifications plus bid forms)
• Pre-bid meeting and job-walk including agenda, and notes
• Responses to bid questions & issue up to one bid addenda
• Bid evaluation and recommendation
TASK 20-LANDSLIDE GEOPHYSICAL STUDY (FUTURE PHASE 3 SCOPE)
The Landslide Geophysical Study is a subsurface investigation aimed at evaluating
geologic and groundwater conditions that may be contributing to ongoing landslide activity in
the Portuguese Bend area. The study is intended to inform long-term slope stabilization planning
by characterizing potential groundwater sources, identifying upwelling zones, assessing
groundwater flow directions, and delineating the geometry of the slide plane and bentonite
layer(s). Proposed geophysical methods include land-based electrornagnetics, electrical
resistivity, seismic techniques, or other technologies identified during the scoping process. Aerial
and downhole geophysical methods have already been screened out due to limitations in
resolution, logistical challenges, and insufficient coverage for the scale of investigation, making
ground-based methods the most appropriate for the project's site-speci fie objectives.
These methods can collect continuous, high-resolution data along targeted transects,
offering more robust spatial coverage than traditional borehole investigations. This approach
reduces reliance on interpolation between widely spaced boreholes and can improve confidence
in subsurface interpretations across the study area. The resulting datasets can be incorporated
into three-dimensional visualizations to support interpretation of geologic structures,
engineering design considerations, and siting of potential dewatering infrastructure. The
investigation will also aim to provide insight into preferential groundwater pathways and inform
estimates of groundwater extraction volumes.
Additional components of the study include development and/or refinement of a
groundwater model and a leak detection investigation. Geosyntec will work with the City to
develop an appropriate scope, budget, and schedule for this work. A contract amendment will be
necessary once agreed upon by Geosyntec and City.
* * * * *
ATTACHMENT A
Fee Estimate
Task
0
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2
2.1
2.2
3
4
5
6
6.1
6.2
6,3
7
8
20
Rancho Palos Verdes Landslide
Drainage Study Phase 1
(Tasks O through 4, 7)
Geosyntec Fee Estimate
Date: 4/30/2025
Task Description
Project Management, Meetings, and Administration
Drainage and Development Study
Data Collection and Review
-Review availab le data and conduct field reconnaissance .
-Deliverable : Data Summary Memo
Timeline Summary of Development
-Assess development history in the contributing watersheds .
-Deliverable : Deve looment Timeline Summary
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Assessment
-Conduct hydrologic and hydrauli c analys is of the drainage areas .
-Deliverable : Drainaae Studv Memo and electronic model files
H&H Model Update w/ Surface Fractures/Cracks
H&H Model Update w/ Flow Monitoring & Model Calibration
Project Concept Development
Recommendations and Estimates
-Deve lop planning-level concepts and cast estimates .
-Del iv erable : Draft and Final Proiect Conceot Reoort
Presentation to City Council (Draft Concept Report)
-Prepare and present al tern atives from the Draft Concept Report .
-Deliverable : Presentation
Property and Easement Needs
-Identify real estate needs for concept alternatives.
-Deliverable: Incorporated as discussion within Concept Report
Utility Research
-Conduct utility records search and identify potential utility conflicts .
-Deliverable: Incorporated as discussion and plotted on the alternatives in the Draft Concept
Report: and correspondence loq with utility owners
Cultural Resources Study
Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
Geotechnical/Geological Eva luation
Land Survey
Civil Design
Permitting Research
-Identify required project approvals and permits for concept alternatives .
-Deliverable: lncoroorated as discussion within Concept Report
Construction Procurement
Landslide Geophysical Study
Total
Fee
$60,000
$167,700
$55,800
$14,800
$97,100
TBD
TBD
$120,900
$111,300
$9,600
$8,300
$34,500
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
$7,200
TBD
TBD
$398,600
Fee Estimate Note: Budget for Phase 2 (Ta sks 5, 6, and BJ to be negotiated to fit the needs of the selected alternative
01203000 11835260 I A-I
IL As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible work
products to the City:
A. Task 0 -Project Management
a. ( 1) Vitiual Kick-Off Meeting
b. (6) Monthly Virtual Coordination/Progress Meetings
c. ( 12) Bi-Weekly Status Reports
d. (6) Monthly Project Schedule Updates
8. Task 1.1 -Data Collection and Review
a. Data Summary Memorandum
C. Task l .2 -Time line Summary of Development
a. Development Timeline Summary
D. Task 1.3 -Hydrologic and Hydraulic Assessment
a. Drainage Study Memo and Electronic Model Files
E. Task 1.4 -H&H Model Update with Surface Fractures/Cracks
a. TBD
F. Task 1.5 -H&H Model Update with Flow Monitoring and Model Calibration
a. TBD
G. Task 2. l -Recommendations and Estimates
01.20-1 unn1 A-2
a. Draft Project Concept Report
H. Task 2.2 -Presentation to City Council
a. (I) Summary Presentation of the Draft Project Concept Repo1i
b. (I) Summary~ Two-Page Report
c. (I) Virtual Presentation to City Council and Stakeholders
I. Task 3 -·· Property and Easement Needs
a. Incorporated as discussion within Draft Project Concept Report
J. Task 4 -Utility Research
a. Incorporated as Discussion and Plotted on the Alternative Concepts within
Draft Project Concept Report
b. Log of Con-espondence with Utility Owners
K. Task 5 -Cultural Resources Study
a. Cultural Resources Study
L. Task 6.1 -Geotechnical/Geological Evaluation
a. Geotechnical Memorandum
M. Task 6.2 -Land Survey
a. Stamped and Signed Survey.
N. Task 6.3 -Civil Design
A-3
a. 50% Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate
b. 90% Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate
c. Final Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate
0. Task 7 -Permitting Research
a. Identified Project Approvals and Pennits Incorporated as Discussion
within the Draft Project Concept Repo11
P. Task 8 -Construction Procurement
a. Bid Documents (Final Plans and Specifications Plus Bid Forms)
b. Pre-bid Meeting and Job-Walk Including Agenda, and Notes
c. Responses to Bid Questions & Issue up to One Bid Addenda
d. Bid Evaluation and Recommendation
Q. Task 20 -Landslide Geophysical Study
a. TBD
III. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2, during performance of the Services,
Consultant will keep the City appraised of the status of performance by delivering the
following status reports:
a. ( 6) Monthly Virtual Coordination/Progress Meetings
b. (12) Bi-Weekly Status Reports
c. (6) Monthly Project Schedule Updates
A-4
IV. All work product are subject to reasonable review and acceptance by the City and must
be revised by the Consultant without additional charge to the City until found satisfactory
and accepted by City.
V. Consultant will utilize the following key personnel and other personnel as approved by
the Contract Manager to accomplish the Services:
A. Mark Hanna, PhD, PE Project Director
B. Daniel Lee, PE, CCM Project Manager
C. Sam Hwang, PE, ENV SP Project Engineer
D. Phil Reidy, PE Quality Control
E. Al Preston, PhD, PE Hydrology & Hydraulics
F. Muhammed Mustafa, PhD, PE Hydrology & Hydraulics
G. James Gonzales, PG, CHG Hydrogeology
H. Yonas Zemuy, PE Geotechnical
I. Kathleen Harrison, PG Environmental Compliance
J. Haley Bauer, PE Civil Engineering
A-5
EXHIBIT "B"
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
Added text indicated in hold italics, deleted text indicated in 5-t-rikethrough.
Section 1.1, Scope of Services, is hereby amended as follows:
1.1 Scope of Services.
In compliance with all tenns and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall
provide those services specified in the '·Scope of Services". as stated in the Proposal. attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein
as the ··services"' or "'work" hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this
Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and
facilities necessary to properly perfonn the services required under this Agreement in a thorough,
competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services
contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its
ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it
shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required
hereunder and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose
intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "highest professional standards" shall mean
those standards of practice ordinarily exercised by other firms recogn ized-ey-eHe-B-f--+HBR·L·HJ:st-
class firms performing similar work under similar circumstances.
Section 1.3, Compliance With Law, is hereby amended as follows:
1.3 Compliance with Law.
Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder
in accordance with, all applicable ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the
City and any Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time
service is rendered.
Section 2,4, Invoices, is hereby amended as follows:
2.4 Invoices.
Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice, using the City template,
or in a format acceptable to the City, for all work performed and expenses incurred during the
preceding month in a form approved by City's Director of Finance. By submitting an invoice for
payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying compliance with all provisions of the
Agreement. The invoice shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the
following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and sub-
B-1
contractor contracts. Sub-contractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant
shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person.
City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine
whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this
Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant
which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will ttSe-~t:rbest effort'., te cause
Consultant to be paid within 45 (forty-five) days of receipt of Consultant's correct and
undisputed invoice: however. Con!ltiltant acknowle,(;lges-a+1d-agree:; that due to City wafl:a-ttHHtt
f3-f0€edllre~.;. Lhe City cannot guarantee that paymen-t will occur •,vithin this -t-tme period. In the
event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City
to Consultant for correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice
provided by the Consultant shall not constitut~ a waiver of any rights or remedies provided
herein or any applicable law.
Section 3.3, Force Majeure. is hereby amended as follows:
3.3 Force Majeure.
The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the
services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to
unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant,
including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather,
fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes,
wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant
shall within 10 (ten) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in
writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of
delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when
and if in the reasonable judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract
Officer's determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no
event shall Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the
performance of this Agreement, however caused, Consultant's sole remedy being extension of
the Agreement pursuant to this Section.
Section 5.2, General Insurance Requirements, is hereby amended as follows:
5.2 General Insurance Requirements.
(i) Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to ab-1-ige its insurance agt?tH-BHf~-aRa
insurers to provide te-City with a 30 (thirty) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment
for which a 10 (ten) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required
coverage.
B-2
EXHIBIT "C"
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. For the "Rancho Palos Verdes Landslide Drainage Study Expanded Scope of Work
and Fee Estimate REVl" proposal dated March 17, 2025, revised April 30, 2025, selected
method of compensation is fixed fee payment based on a monthly percentage of completion
of services. Consultant shall perform the following tasks at the following rates:
TASK RATE TIME SUB-BUDGET
A. Task0 $60,000 1 $60,000
B. Task 1.1 $55,800 1 $55,800
C. Task 1.2 Sl4,800 1 $14,800
D. Task 1.3 $97,100 1 S97,100
E. Task 1.4 TBD 1 TBD
F. Task 1.5 TBD 1 TBD
G. Task 2.1 $111,300 1 $111,300
H. Task 2.2 S9,600 1 $9,600
I. Task 3 $8,300 1 $8,300
J. Task 4 $34,500 1 $34,500
K. Task 5 TBD 1 TBD
L. Task 6.1 TBD 1 TBD
M. Task 6.2 TBD 1 TBD
N. Task 6.3 TBD 1 TBD
0. Task 7 $7,200 1 $7,200
P. Task 8 TBD 1 TBD
Q. Task 20 TBD l TBD
C-1
II. 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.
III. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of
a valid invoice.
For lump sum or percentage completion compensation per Agreement Section 2.2
(Method of Compensation), each monthly invoice is to include a cover letter
summarizing work completed for the invoice period and a tabulated summary of
Scheule of Compensation with percentage work complete for each task.
For time and materials invoice compensation per Agreement Section 2.2 (Method of
Compensation), each monthly invoice is to include:
A. Line items for all personnel describing the work performed, the number of hours
worked, and the hourly rate.
B. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the Services.
C. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting
documentation.
D. Line items for all approved subcontractor labor, supplies, equipment, materials,
and travel properly charged to the Services.
IV. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed the Contract Sum as
provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement.
V. The Consultant's billing rates for all personnel are attached as Exhibit C-1.
C-2
EXHIBIT "C-1"
CONSULT ANT RA TE SCHEDULE
Staff Professional
Senior Staff Professional
Professional
Project Professional
Senior Professional
Principal
Senior Principal
Technician I
Technician II
Senior Technician I
Senior Technician II
Site 1-fa.nager I
Site 1-'fanager II
Construction 1-fanager I
Construction :M:an.ager II
Senior Designer
Designer
Senior Drafter/Senior CADD Operator
Drafter/GADD Operator/ . .\rtist
Prnj ect Administrator
Clerical
Diret..--t Expenses
Subcontract SetYices
Specialized Computei-Applications (per hour)
Personal Automobile (per mile)
Photocopies (per page)
Notes on Consultant Rate Schedule:
$175
$200
$227
$254
$285
$310
$330
$ 96
$105
$115
$125
$135
$155
$165
$180
$215
$180
$165
$150
$ 98
$ 80
Cost plus 12%
Cost p1us 12%
$ 15
Current Go,/t Rate
$ .09
o Consultant Rate Schedule to be used for time and materials compensation
o Rates are provided on a confidential basis and are client and project specific.
o Unless otherwise agreed, rates will be adjusted annually based on a minimum of
the Producer Price Index for Engineering Services.
C-3
EXm:BIT,~D
SCHEDULEOF'2ERrORMANCE
I. Consultant shall perform all services timely in accordance with the following
schedule:
Task Duration
A. Task 0 24 Weeks
B. Task I. I 4 Weeks
C. Task 1.2 5 Weeks
D. Task 1.3 8 Weeks
E. Task 1.4 TBD
F. Task 1.5 TBD
G. Task 2.1 8 Weeks
H. Task 2.2 3 Weeks
I. Task 3 8 Weeks
J. Task 4 8 Weeks
K. Task 5 TBD
L. Task 6.1 TBD
M. Task 6.2 TBD
N. Task 6.3 TBD
0. Task 7 8 Weeks
P. Task 8 TBD
Q. Task 20 TBD
II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City under the
following schedule from the "Notice to Proceed" (NTP) date.
I COO lf8 D-l
A. Task 0-Project Management (24 Weeks)
a. (I) Viriual Kick-Off Meeting (I week from NTP)
b. (6) Monthly Virtual Coordination/Progress Meetings (24 weeks from
NTP)
c. (12) Bi-Weekly Status Reports (24 weeks from NTP)
d. (6) Monthly Project Schedule Updates (24 weeks from NTP)
B. Task I. I -Data Collection and Review
a. Data Summary Memorandum ( 4 weeks from NTP)
C. Task 1.2 -Time line Summary of Development
a. Development Timeline Summary (5 weeks from NTP)
D. Task 1.3 -Hydro logic and Hydraulic Assessment
a. Drainage Study Memo and Electronic Model Files (8 weeks from NTP)
E. Task 1.4 -H&H Model Update with Surface Fractures/Cracks (TBD)
a. TBD
F. Task I .5 -H&H Model Update w/ Flow Monitoring & Model Calibration (TBD)
a. TBD
G. Task 2.1 -Recommendations and Estimates
a. Draft Project Concept Report ( 16 weeks from NTP)
D-2
,!)r;J
H. Task 2.2 -Presentation to City Council
a. (I) Summary Presentation of the Draft Project Concept Report ( 19 weeks
from NTP)
b. (I) Summary -Two-Page Report ( 19 weeks from NTP)
c. (I) Vitiual Presentation to City Council and Stakeholders ( 19 weeks from
NTP)
I. Task 3 -Propetiy and Easement Needs
a. Incorporated as discussion within Draft Project Concept Report ( 16 weeks
from NTP)
J. Task 4 -Utility Research
a. Incorporated as Discussion and Plotted on the Alternative Concepts within
Draft Project Concept Report ( 16 weeks from NTP)
b. Log of Correspondence with Utility Owners ( 16 weeks from NTP)
K. Task 5 -Cultural Resources Study
a. Cultural Resources Study (TBD)
L. Task 6.1 -Geotechnical/Geological Evaluation
a. Geotechnical Memorandum (TBD)
M. Task 6.2 -Land Survey
a. Stamped and Signed Survey (TBD)
N. Task 6.3 -Civil Design
D ,.,
-_)
a. 50% Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate (TBD)
b. 90% Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate (TBD)
c. Final Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate (TBD)
0. Task 7 -Permitting Research
a. Identified Project Approvals and Permits Incorporated as Discussion
within the Draft Project Concept Report ( 16 weeks from NTP)
P. Task 8 -Construction Procurement
a. Bid Documents (Final Plans and Specifications Plus Bid Forms) (TBD)
b. Pre-bid Meeting and Job-Walk Including Agenda, and Notes (TBD)
c. Responses to Bid Questions & Issue up to One Bid Addenda (TBD)
d. Bid Evaluation and Recommendation (TBD)
Q. Task 20 -Landslide Geophysical Investigation
a. TBD
III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the
services in accordance with Section 3.2. Any further extensions require City
Council approval.
D-4
From: Anne Cruz <cruzsanne@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 3:28 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro
<barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; Paul Seo <paul.seo@rpvca.gov>; George Lewis
<George.Lewis@rpvca.gov>; Stephen Perestam <stephen.perestam@rpvca.gov>
Subject: City Council Meeting -5.6.25 Landslide Agenda Item No. 4
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
the content is safe!!!.
Dear City Council:
We write to support you continuing the emergency declarations as they stand for the existing landslide
area as defined therein. We appreciate all resources you have committed to the Portuguese Bend area
and to the portion of Seaview neighbors affected by the movement. Please continue to support these
deeply affected areas with committed resources. We provide notice to you again of the specific
concerns below:
1-Please approve the recommended spending to continue maintaining the working wells we have.
2-Please fund the drainage/hydrology study. This study is key and overdue. It will help efficiently scope
future decisions in this area including as to financial commitments by the City.
3-Dauntless/Exultant: The Staff Report contains no mention of properly remediating or fixing the
Dauntless/Exultant corner. This needs to be fixed. Crucially, when will there be an appropriate fix for the
corner with sewer and other pipes going through this corner? At Page 15, there is only mention that LA
County is keeping an eye on the sewer. Winterization efforts were temporary only. There is no mention
or update regarding the openly dangerous nuisances of the corner and the adjacent two red-tagged
homes. This entire corner needs to be addressed immediately. It continues to be unsafe and inhumane
to leave it as is including the parts of the public street. The area should not be generally used as storage
either for materials and contractors.
These are taken from today:
I/.
Please do not forget this public street corner and its residents . Fix it now.
4-Less than 4 wheeled traffic should continue to be prohibited on Palos Verdes Drive South. We drive
on this road on average 3-4 times a day. Two wheeled vehicles and trucks regularly and intentionally
ignore the signs. There should be more enforcement at this point. Anyone violating the existing signs is
knowingly doing so and should be ticketed . Please do not spend any more on signs or portable signs
with lights. The current signs are sufficient. Any trucks that violate the signs did so with reckless
disregard to an over amount of signage as is . They should be billed and held accountable . The staff's
predilection to over sign on Palos Verdes Drive South is unnecessary, distracting and a waste of
money. The portable sign is being used as a digital billboard at this point. The LED signs that were added
by Seaview are really blaring at night . The lumens are extremely bright and really hard to look at when
one drives there regularly. They are almost too much and improperly distracting as it is. If a driver is
ignoring the current, sufficient signs, they should be held 100% personally accountable for their actions.
Please continue the ban. The current signs are sufficient.
Thank you for keeping attention on this situation.
Regards,
Anne Cruz
Dauntless Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, May 6, 2025 3:58 PM
CityClerk
FW: CC MEETING
From: 2hunter <2hunter@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 3:57 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: CC MEETING
Some people who received this message don't often get email from 2hunter@cox.net . Learn why this is important
Dear City Council,
We will be watching tonight's meeting discussion regarding landslide mitigation efforts.
We will continue to do whatever we can to get Federal and State funds for this emergency.
Another, related issue is solar rebates from SCE. We applied for and were approved and nothing is
forthcoming. Any advice or help?
Thank you, Marianne n Bill Hunter
2hunter@cox.net
Portuguese Bend
Marianne Hunter
hunter-studios.com
1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MAY 5, 2025
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, May 6, 2025, City Council meeting :
Item No.
1
3
4
Description of Material
Emails from: Elizabeth Afriyie; Sylvia Soong
Email from Noel Park
Email exchanges between Staff and: Mike Keane; Paul Christopher
Respectfully submitted,
L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\202512025 Coversheets\20250506 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Robert Nemeth
Thursday, May 1, 2025 1:09 PM
John Fox; CityClerk
Brandy Forbes; Octavio Silva; John Alvarez
Subject: RE: Memorandum & Authorities In Support of City Counsel Hearing Scheduled For May
6, 2025 (3015 Crest Road Property)
Attachments: FINAL -MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL SCHEDULED FOR MAY 6 2025.pdf
Thank you, John, because we didn't]
I am copying the City Clerks so they can enter it as late correspondence.
From: John Fox <jfox@awattorneys.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2025 12:42 PM
To: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>; John Alvarez <JohnA@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Brandy Forbes <bforbes@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Memorandum & Authorities In Support of City Counsel Hearing Scheduled For May 6, 2025 (3015 Crest
Road Property)
Hi John and Robert,
Just wanted to make sure you received the attached.
Aleshire N vvynder
John Fox I Partner
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP I 3701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 725, Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (310) 527-6660 I Dir: (310) 527-6668 I jfox@awattorneys.com
This email and any file,, transmittlcd with it may co11t.,1in privilegE"d or othe1wi,,c conficiE"ntial information. If you are not the• intended r,:cipient., or believf' that you
may have received this communic;ition in error, please advise the ,,ender vic1 email and delete the email you rec.eivi~d.
'°" DOUTIQUGS
INC<lU-
From: David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2025 11:40 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Brandy Forbes <bforbes@rpvca.gov>; William Wynder
<wwynder@awattorneys.com>; John Fox <jfox@awattorneys.com>
1 /.
Subject: Fwd: Memorandum & Authorities In Support of City Counsel Hearing Scheduled For May 6, 2025 (3015 Crest
Road Property)
Fysa
Dave Bradley
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Elizabeth Afriyie <ea@beatricetlaw.com>
Date: April 30, 2025 at 5:20:09 PM PDT
To: Paul Seo <paul.seo@rpvca.gov>, David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca~>, Barbara
Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>, George Lewis <George.Lewis@rgvca.gov>, Stephen
Perestam <stephen.perestam@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Memorandum & Authorities In Support of City Counsel Hearing Scheduled
For May 6, 2025 (3015 Crest Road Property)
Dear
Mayor, David L. Bradley;
Mayor Pro Tern, Paul Seo;
Council Member, Barbara Ferraro;
Council Member, George Lewis; and
Council Member, Stephen Perestam,
I hope this email finds you all well.
Please note that this law firm represents Ying Mou and Chunxiao Zhang ("the Appellants")
in the above-referenced matter.
The Appellants respectfully submit the attached memorandum of points and authorities
for your review and in support of the appeal scheduled for May 6, 2025.
Sincerely,
2
Elizabeth Afriyie
Litigation Attorrn'.y I Sl3N: 348078
0 213-794-7580
D ea@beatricetlaw.com
D www.beatricetlaw.com
0 9465 Wilshire Blvd. Ste 300 I
Beverly Hills, CA I 90212
Please be advised that the information contained in this email is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us
immediately by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. We apologize for any inconvenience this
may have caused and appreciate your cooperation in maintaining the confidentiality of this communication.
3
Via Email
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
David L. Bradley, Mayor
Paul Seo, Mayor Pro Tern
Barbara Ferraro, Council Member
George Lewis, Council Member
Stephen Perestam, Council Member
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Email : david .bradley@rpvca.gov ; paul.seo @rpvca .gov
barbara. ferraro@rpvca.gov ; george . lewis@rpvca.gov ;
stephen.perestam@rpvca.gov
\. 213-794-7580
@ atric law.com
e www.b atricetlaw.com
9 465 W H hire Blvd. Ste 300
ver ly Hill CA I 0212
April 30, 2025
RE: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL SCHEDULED FOR MAY 6, 2025
Appellants Ying Mou and Chunxiao Zhang respectfully submit the following memorandum
in support of their appeal to the City Council.
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The appellants own the land and the home at 3015 Crest Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
90275. They bought their home in the early months of 2018 .
When they purchased their land in 2018, the appellants were aware that it was burdened by a
IO-feet-wide sewer easement. The only document Appellant received regarding the sewer
easement, and the only legal description of the sewer easement are embedded herein as
EXHIBIT 1.
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY COUNCIL
RE: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT or APPEAL SCHEDULED FOR MAY 6. 2025
The legal description of the sewer easement shows that the land adjacent to the Appellant's
land, 3027 Crest Road (Parcel 1), has a IO-feet-wide subsurface sewer easement over a
specific area of the Appellant's land (Parcel 2).
(i) General California Law Regarding Easements
In California, an easement is a nonpossessory interest in the land of another that entitles the
easement holder to limited use of the land for a purpose specified in the easement grant
(Wo!fordv. Thomas (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 347; Kazi v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
(2001) 24 Cal.4th 87I;Wolfordv. Thomas (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 347.))
An easement does not grant the easement holder ownership or possessory rights in the land it
burdens Id.
The land burdened by the easement is the servient estate and generally the grantor of the
easement. The land that benefits from the easement is the dominant estate and generally the
grantee of the easement (Zissler v. Saville (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 630; Murphy v. Burch
(2009) 46 Cal.4th 157.) The servient estate owner retains all rights to their property that are
not inconsistent with the easement, and the servient estate owner is entitled to make any use
of their property that does not unreasonably interfere with the easement's purpose (Inzana v.
Turlock Irrigation Dist. Ed. of Directors (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 429; Dolnikov v. Ekizian
(2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 419.;)
The responsibility to repair the easement falls entirely on the easement holder, and the
servient owner is not obligated to maintain or repair the easement unless there is an
agreement to that effect. The holder of the easement has the right to enter the servient estate
to perform necessary repairs or maintenance, provided this is done in a reasonable manner
that does not impose an undue burden on the servient estate, (Reinsch v. Los Angeles (1966)
243 Cal.App.2d 737.)
Based on the legal description of the easement below, Parcel 2 (3015 Crest Rd), which is
burdened by the easement, is the servient estate and the grantor of the easement, and Parcel 1,
which benefits from the easement, is the dominant estate, and the grantee of the easement.
Appellants are, therefore, the grantors of the easement.
(ii) Legal Description of the Easement
The sewer easement described below is a nonexclusive 10-feet-wide easement. Consistent
with sewer easements, which are subsurface rights to use the land beneath for the specific
purpose of installing sewer pipes/laterals and maintaining and repairing such pipes/laterals,
the sewer easement described in EXHIBIT 1 has no height requirements. It only provides a
10-feet-wide width requirement.
2
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY COUNCIL
RE: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL SCHEDULED FOR MAY 6. 2025
Therefore, based on the legal description of the easement below, Parcel 1 has a
nonpossessory right to use the land beneath the specified area of Parcel 2 (described below)
to install sewer pipes/laterals. The owners of Parcel 2 still retain their airspace rights to their
land, the right to use the surface of their land, and the right to use the subsurface of their land
to the extent that the particular part of the subsurface is not occupied by the Parcel l's
easement (sewer pipes/laterals). Parcel 2's owners' only responsibility to the easement holder
is to ensure that their use of their land is not inconsistent with the easement's purpose.
EXHIBIT 1 -Legal Description of Sewer Easement.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR EASEMENT TO
PARCEL 1 FOR SANITARY SEWER PURPOSES
IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDE,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN EASEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWER PURPOSES 10 FEET WIDTH OVER
THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 19424, IN THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED !N BOOK 237. PAGES 94 AND 95, OF
PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNrY RECORDER OF COUNTY,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION POINT OF THE BOUNDARY LINES OF
PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2(NORTH 42'20' 25" WEST AND NORTH 49'00' 00"
WEST), THENCE NORTH 49• 00' oo· WEST 9.33 FEET, THENCE NORTH so·
00' 00" EAST 113.33 FEET, THENCE NORTH 23' 22' 40" WEST 10.44 FEET,
THENCE NORTH 50' 00' oo· EAST 108.86 FEET, THENCE NORTH 42• 20' 25"
WEST 0.78 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
SA!O PARCEL CONT A!N!NG 1112 SQUARE FEET, OR O.Q26 ACRES
GRAPHIC SCALE',,.
3
CITY OF RANC HO PALOS VE RD ES
CIT Y COUNC I L
RE: MEMORANDUM IN SUP PORT OF A PPEAL SC HEDUL ED FO R MAY 6. 2025
(iii) Appellants Request a Permit from The City to Build on Their Land.
According to numerous Staff Report s that the City ha s published and to th e City 's Resolution
PC. RESOLUTION NO. 2020 -10, the Appellants submitted a permit on July 12, 2018 , to
build on their land , Parcel 2.
The relevant parts of the drawings of the plans that the appellant submitted to the City and the
actual built structure are embedded here as EXHIBIT 2 .
EXHIBIT 2 -Drawing Plans submitted to the City.
.1/
,C, ' -+}---I. ----'-~ •
.. :~, ~, I -
;J. ·~•/ho .Z~~--;-.. ___ ~ _ .. _.:-:4.:-_..
-----00
4
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY COUNC IL
RE : MEMORANDUM IN SUPPOR T OF APPEAL SC HEDU LED FOR MAY 6. 2025
EXHIBIT 2-Annex (Physical Depiction of the Drawings)
5
CITY OF RA NC HO PALO S VE RD ES
CITY CO UNC IL
RE: MEMO RAN DU M IN SU PP ORT OF Al'PEAL SC HED ULED FOR MA Y 6. 2025
As shown above, the plans that appellants submitted to the City showed that they did not
intend to build any permanent structure on the surface ground where Parcel 1 held the 10-
feet-wide subsurface sewer easement. Based on the plans that the appe ll ants submitted to the
City, the surface ground was left bare, and the appe ll ants proposed a cei lin g height of l O feet
above the surface ground where the subsurface sewer easement was. The City did not require
that appe ll ants maintain a ceiling height of 10 feet above the surface ground. The 10-foot
ceiling height was merely the appe ll ants' design for their home .
On July 18 , 20 18, about a month after Appellants submitted their app li cation to the City, the
City's Planning Division of the Community Development Department (also referred to as "the
City ") issued Appe llant s an "incomplete letter" that outlined various deficiencies with
Appe ll ant's app lication. Of relevance here, the C ity informed appellants that their proposed
plans impli cated Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) section 17.49.030.F , which
provides as follows:
Easements. Setbacks from legal easements, other than street right-of-way
easements, shall not be required . In addition to the appropriate review and
approval by the City, no construction of any structure or improvement is
6
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY COUNCIL
RE: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL SCHEDULED FOR MAY 6. 2025
allowed within a legal easement without written authorization from the
legal holder of the easement. Such authorization shall be in a form that
can be recorded and shall be reviewed by the city attorney.
After the City determined that the proposed plans were within the easement, the City
Attorney prepared a document titled "CONSTRUCTION AND ENCROACHMENT
AGREEMENT" for appellants and the owner of Parcel 1 to sign. Appellants attest, and are
prepared to sign a declaration under the penalty of perjury to this effect when necessary, that
the City informed them that the only way they could construct on the land they had paid over
$1 million dollars to acquire was if they signed the CONSTRUCTION AND
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT prepared by the City Attorney; that appellants
understood the agreement to be part of the permitting process; and that Appellant trusted the
City Attorney to be acting in their best interests.
According to various staff reports subsequently issued by the City, the City deemed the
appellants' application complete for processing on June 5, 2020, and subsequently issued
permits to build on their land.
While the appellants were building their home, Appellants needed to install AC ducts and
utility pipes in the area right underneath the ceiling as shown EXHIBIT 3 below. Appellants
then enclosed the area underneath the area to cover and protect the utility pipes and AC ducts.
This enclosure caused the ceiling height to lower from 10 feet to 8 feet. The height of
appellants structural beam remained unchanged from the 10 feet plan they previously
submitted to the City.
The owner of Parcel 1 noticed the change in ceiling heights and reported her observations to
the City. The City subsequently issued a stop order to the appellants and informed them that
lowering the ceiling height by two feet was a construction or improvement within the sewer
easement. Appellants, therefore, needed the written authorization of their neighbors to lower
their ceiling height by two feet.
7
CITY OF RA NC HO PALOS VERD ES
CITY COU NC IL
RE: MEM ORA NDUM IN SU PP ORT OF APPEA L SC HED ULED FOR MAY 6. 2025
EXHIBIT 3 -Installation of AC Ducts and Utility Pipes
< Rancho Palos Verdes -San Pedro Hill Edit
December 7, 2023 10:26 AM 8
8
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY COUNCIL
RE: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL SCHEDULED FOR MAY 6, "025
B. APPEAL OF THE CITY'S DECISION
Appellants submitted a written appeal of the City's decision to the City on November 11,
2024. The City set a hearing date for the appeal on Febrnary 11, 2025. Before the hearing on
the appeal, the Appellants, through their counsel, requested clarification from the City
regarding the City's findings that the appellants' building plan was within the 10-feet-wide
subsurface sewer easements. Specifically, appellants requested clarification on how far north,
south, east, or west appellants needed to constrnct their building from the subsurface sewer
easement not to have been within the sewer easement.
Mr. Robert Nemeth, acting on behalf of the City, informed counsel for the Appellants that the
City's legal reasoning for finding that the Appellants' building was within the 10-feet-wide
subsurface sewer easement would be provided in the City's Staff Report five days before the
hearing date.
In the Staff Report that was subsequently published, and at the Febrnary 11, 2025, appeal, the
City cited the Constrnction and Encroachment Agreement that the City Attorney prepared to
support its findings that the Appellant building was within the 10-feet-wide subsurface sewer
easement. The City argued that by signing the Constrnction and Encroachment Agreement,
Appellants somehow converted the 10-feet wide subsurface sewer easement into a 10-feet
wide, 10-feet high sewer easement. That is, somehow, by the Agreement, the sewer easement
as described in EXHIBIT 1 that had no airspace rights or land surface rights was converted to
an easement with airspace rights and land surface rights, and the airspace right of the
easement was exactly IO feet high.
The mental gymnastics the City conducted to arrive at this conclusion are not supported by
the facts, the express written terms of the Constrnction and Encroachment Agreement, or any
California legal authority.
Firstly, it was precisely because the City determined that the appellants' building plan was
within the easement, thereby implicating Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC)
section 17.49.030.F, that the City required appellants to sign the Constrnction and
Encroachment Agreement that the City's Attorney prepared. Therefore, this Agreement could
not have been what placed the appellants' building within the subsurface sewer easement as
the City determined.
Secondly, even if the City's argument is to be considered, nowhere in the express written
terms of the Agreement do the parties to the Agreement expressly state that they intend to
convert or amend the subsurface sewer easement as described in EXHIBIT 1 into an
easement with surface and airspace rights or an airspace rights of 10 feet high.
The City relies on the following paragraph and language of the Constrnction and
Encroachment Agreement to support its determination.
9
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY COUNCIL
RE: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL SCHEDULED FOR MAY 6. 2025
"2. Construction and Encroachment Agreement. Grantor, for themselves and for their
successors and assigns, hereby convey and grant to Grantee, its successors and assigns, an
encroachment as described in Exhibit C (the "Project Plans") and non-exclusive
easement (the "Construction and Encroachment Agreement") over, under, in, along,
across and upon the property described on the attached and incorporated Exhibit D (the
"Easement Area") for use in the construction and installation of the improvements and other
construction purposes reasonably related to the construction of the improvements described in
Exhibit C (the "Project Plans"). Prior to commencement of the Construction and
Encroachment Agreement, Grantee shall have access to the Easement Area during normal
business hours to conduct all studies, tests, examinations and surveys necessary to design and
construct the improvements."
**The Grantor to this Agreement is identified as Ms. Sylvia H. Soong, and the Appellants are
described as the Grantees.
The City's Argument
The City argued that the use of the words "over, under, in, along, across and upon the
property described on the attached and incorporated Exhibit D (the "Easement Area")"
in the Agreement means that the IO' wide subsurface sewer easement was converted to a IO'
wide easement with land surface rights and airspace rights of exactly IO' high.
Appellants vehemently disagree with the City's analysis and are confident that every
California court of competent jurisdiction will disagree with the City's reasoning and
analysis.
However, even if the City's legal reasoning is to be considered, as a matter of basic principles
of property law and common sense, an individual can grant another individual only the
property rights that the individual actually has. A person cannot grant another person rights
in a property that that person does not have. Ms. Soong is identified as the grantor in this
Agreement, which means that under the Agreement, she is the one granting whatever
property rights she has to the grantees of the Agreement. Therefore, Ms. Soong, here, as the
only grantor to this Agreement, can only grant the grantees the property rights that she has.
As identified above, Ms. Soong's Parcel, Parcel 1, has a 10-feet-wide subsurface sewer
easement. Therefore, if Ms. Soong could grant anything under this Agreement, it would be
her property's 10-feet-wide subsurface sewer easement rights.
The appellants, who own Parcel 2, the land burdened by the 10-feet-wide subsurface
easement, retained their airspace and land surface right above the sewer easement. Appellants
are identified as the grantees of this Agreement. Therefore, according to this Agreement,
appellants are not granting any property rights by this Agreement-they are only receiving
property rights granted by Ms. Soong and/or her property.
Ms. Soong could not grant airspace and land surface rights by this Agreement because she
had no legal rights to them. Thus, given that appellants were the legal owners of the land,
owned the airspace and land surface rights, and did not grant anything by this Agreement,
there is absolutely no way by this Agreement that appellants converted or amended the 10-
feet-wide subsurface easement into a l 0-feet-wide easement with airspace and land surface
rights of 10 feet high.
10
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY COUNCIL
RE: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL SCI IEDULED FOR MAY 6. 2025
Additionally, nowhere in this Agreement do appellants implicitly or explicitly warrant to
maintain a ceiling height of 10 feet high, and at all times.
Furthermore, the paragraph that the City relies on states "Grantor ... conveys ... !!Q!!.:
exclusive easement (the "Construction and Encroachment Agreement") over, under, in,
along, across and upon the property described on the attached and incorporated
Exhibit D (the "Easement Area").
The property described in EXHIBIT Dis the Appellant's land. Ms. Soong cannot grant any
one property rights, including easements or licenses in property that she does not legally own.
In addition to the fact that Ms. Soong cannot legally grant anyone rights in land that she does
not own, under California law, an individual cannot grant a homeowner an easement in the
homeowner's own land. See, California Civil Code§ 804 "A servitude can be created only
by the person who has a vested estate in the servient tenement" [meaning, an easement
can only be created by the person with possessory and ownership rights in the land.] See
also, California Civil Code § 805 "A servitude thereon cannot be held by the owner of
the servient estate." [ meaning the landowner cannot hold an easement in their own
land.]
The City's legal reasoning and interpretation of this Agreement to support its decision are
simply wrong.
The most reasonable interpretation of this Agreement is that Ms. Soong agreed to grant
appellants a non-exclusive license to encroach over her 10 feet wide subsurface sewer
easement. That is, Ms. Soong agreed that appellants could also utilize the same subsurface
land area where her sewer pipes are supposed to be for appellants' construction and
improvement projects. For example, by this license, if Appellants also wanted to install their
sewer pipes at the same location where Ms. Soong's sewer pipes are supposed to be, then they
could do so as well.
C. MS. SOON GS REASONING FOR OBJECTING TO LOWERING THE
CEILING HEIGHT FROM 10' TO 8'.
During the last appeal, Ms. Soong cited concerns about repairing her sewer pipes as her
reasoning for objecting to the ceiling height being lowered by 2 feet from 10 feet to 8 feet.
Respectfully, Ms. Soong's concerns are unfounded. Mr. Michael Song, S.E, a California
licensed structural engineer, has opined that any future sewer pipe repairs and replacement of
the sewer pipes, which are buried 6' to 9' below the appellants' land surface, must be
performed trenchless. In other words, the sewer pipes can only be repaired using basic tools.
Should it become necessary, Ms. Soong's ability to enter into the appellant's land to repair her
sewer pipes will not be impaired or inhibited by the ceiling height being lowered to 8 feet.
Additionally, Appellants' sewer pipes are buried around the same area as Ms. Soong's pipes.
The fact that appellants obtained the necessary permits to lay their sewer laterals near Ms.
11
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY COUNCIL
RE: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL SCHEDULED FOR MAY 6. 2025
Soong's sewer pipes, appellants engineer found no issues with appellants ability to effectively
and efficiently repair their sewer pipes using the same trenchless method is proof that Ms.
Soong's ability to repair her sewer pipes will not be inhibited in anyway by the ceiling height
being lowered to 8 feet.
Lastly, several planning commissioners expressed in their remarks during the Febrnary 11th
hearing that the 8-feet high ceiling does not burden any effort to access, repair, and/or
maintain Ms. Soong's or the Appellants' sewer laterals and any potential repair or
maintenance work on either party's sewer laterals can be done successfully, even with the 8-
feet high ceiling.
The opinion of Mr. Michael Soong, S.E is embedded here as EXHIBIT D.
12
CITY OF RANCHO PAI.OS VERDES
CITY COUNCIL
RE: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL SCHEDULED FOR MAY 6. 2025
M.S. Consulting Engineering
12631 Imperial IIWY #F-230, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
T cl: (562) 863-9999: Fax: (562) 863-9991: mspese@gmail.com
February 4, 2025
To: Mr. ChunXiao Zhang
3015 Crest Road
From:
Re:
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Michael Song, P.E., S.E.
M.S. Consulting Engineering
Sewer pipe future repairs & replacement
Dear Mr. Zhang,
Per our phone conversations regarding the referenced sewer pipes of the property 3027 &
3015 Crest Road located on the sewer easement as shown in the attached plan.
It is my opinion that the future sewer pipe repairs or replacement for 3027 Crest Road which
is buried 6 feet to 9 feet below the finish grade (see attached building section for more
clarification) must be perfo1med trenchless, any open trench construction repair or
replacement will destabilize the building structure.
In the hyper theoretical occasion that the only way to repair or replace a portion of the sewer
pipe is open trench then a California licensed professional civil/ structural engineer must
be hired to design & specify the procedure of the construction, the design & procedure must
be reviewed and approved by the building department of City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
Cal/OSHA permit must be obtained before commencing any work.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact
our office at (562) 863-9999, email: mspese@gmail.com.
Very truly yours,
Michael Song, S.E. (CA Registration C-66285; S-5266; renew date: 6/30/2026)
M.S. Consulting Engineering
Page 1 ,sg
13
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY COUNCIL
RE: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL SCHEDULED FOR MAY 6. 2025
D. APPALLANTS PLEA TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Appellants respectfully request that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's
decision, which the City states is based on its interpretation of the Construction and
Encroachment Agreement.
Appellants recognize and appreciate the wisdom behind Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code (RPVMC) section 17.49.030.F to protect the rights of easement holders. However,
appellants believe that section 17.49.030.F, as applied to the facts of their case, is an incorrect
interpretation of the City Code. The easement in question here is a IO-foot-wide subsurface
sewer easement. Ms. Soong's easement location is where her sewer pipes are buried below
the ground. Ms. Song's sewer pipes are buried between 6 feet and 9 feet deep into the ground.
Therefore, the distance between the appellant's ceiling height of 8 feet and Ms. Soong's actual
sewer pipes is at least 14 feet. A ceiling height of about 14 feet above an easement (the sewer
pipes) cannot be within that easement.
Finally, the Appellants are willing to enter into a new agreement with Ms. Soong, which will
invalidate and nullify the previous Construction and Encroachment Agreement but will
outline each party's duties, rights, and obligations regarding the 10-feet-wide sewer easement,
and each party will commit to comply with their obligations under the law regarding the
easement. For example, under the new Agreement, the appellants can commit to not making
use of their land in a manner that is inconsistent with the easement's purpose.
Sincerely,
Date: 04/30/2025
BeatriceT Law, A California Professional Corporation
Elizabeth Opuni Afriyie, Esq.
Attorney for Appellants, Ying Mou and Chunxiao Zhang
14
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Good Morning,
S S <soongshw@gmail.com>
Monday, May 5, 2025 8:08 AM
CityClerk
Robert Nemeth
Fwd: Late Correspondence for 5/6/2025 City Council Meeting
Letter to City Council.3027 Crest Road.pdf
I am confirming you have received my late correspondence sent on 5/1/2025.
Thanl<you,
Sylvia
----------Forwarded message---------
From: S S <soongshw@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 1, 2025 at 7:32 PM
Subject: Late Correspondence for 5/6/2025 City Council Meeting
To: CityClerl< <cityclerl<@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>
Dear City Clerl<,
Please see the attached correspondence related to the 5/6/2025 Agenda Public Hearing Item #1.
Than I< you,
Sylvia Soong
1 /.
May 1, 2025
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Public Hearing Item (1): Consideration of an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision of an incomplete development application for 3015 Crest
Road (Case No. PLHV2018-0003)
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
As stated in my previous correspondence included with the published agenda, I am the
property owner of 3027 Crest Road and the legal holder of the sewer easement that runs
through the Appellants' property at 3015 Crest Road. I understand your time is valuable
and should be focused on the City's most pressing matters.
The purpose of this letter is to assist in your review by highlighting key and relevant
information discussed in prior Planning Commission meetings regarding the sewer
easement. It is important to reiterate that the 1 0' x 1 0' structural clearance over the sewer
easement is legally established for my property and is supported by the Construction and
Encroachment Agreement ("Agreement") entered into by both parties.
I have included links with timestamps to specific Planning Commission meeting
discussions directly related to this issue:
7/14/2020 Planning Commission Meeting
https://rpv.granicus.com/player/clip/3701 ?view id=5&redirect=true
Timestamp 4:00:40 -4:13:00 (over 12 minutes)
The Planning Commission and the City Attorney discussed at length about the sewer
easement with repeated acknowledgment of the 1 0'x1 0' clearance space over the sewer
easement.
Timestamp 4:00:40
The City Attorney stated easement rights are between property owners and the City is not
responsible for enforcement.
Timestamp 4:03:35
The City Attorney explained, "generally, the holder of the easement has the right and duty
to maintain the easement. .. that includes the right to access the property to access and
maintain the easement. ... that would just be the law." She then explained the intent of the
Construction Encroachment Agreement with the Commission.
Timestamp 4:11 :35
Chair Leon asked if the owner of the easement should assess if the 1 0'x10' tunnel is
sufficient for accessing, and the City Attorney responded that was the reason the
1
Construction and Encroachment Agreement is in place and that's what the owner of the
easement has figured out as sufficient.
Timestamp 4:12:30
The City Attorney further clarified for the Commission the executed Agreement was
intended for recording once the entitlement issues have been addressed and clarified that
recordation of the Agreement is for public notice and does not alter its validity.
8/11/2020 Planning Commission Meeting
https://rpv.granicus.com/player/clip/3714?view id=5&redirect=true
Timestamp 06:20
The Sewer Easement Condition of Approval No. 33 was added where all improvements
on the ground surface withing the 10-foot wide sewer easement shall be temporary with
the exception of two semi-permanent staircases for access.
2/11/2025 Planning Commission Meeting (Appeal Hearing)
https ://rpv.g ran icus.com/playe r/clip/4 728?view _id=5&red i rect=true
Timestamp 1 :33:00
Commissioner George acknowledged the Construction and Encroachment Agreement is
outside the City's purview and supported staff's finding that the application was
incomplete.
Timestamp 1 :36:32
Commissioner Chura noted that the Appellants were aware of the 3027 Crest Road sewer
lines laid underground within the sewer easement and their new objections raised would
be a code enforcement issue. Therefore, irrelevant for discussion at the appeal hearing.
Commissioner Chura further stated, "no one here disputes that the easement exists." He
recognized that the Appellants' intention to build a house over the existing sewer
easement deemed the Agreement was necessary to establish a reasonable clearance for
the easement owner's access. Otherwise, the Appellants could build their structure to
the ground.
Timestamp 1 :41 :00
Vice Chair Nulman stated that it was not in the Commission's purview to determine the
appropriate height established in the private Agreement. The Commission's purview is to
determine if staff made the appropriate decision. Vice Chair Nu Iman further stated that
when the Appellants bought their property, the existing sewer easement clearance was
ground to sky. The established Agreement allowed the Appellants to build bridging over
the easement, and yet, the Appellants didn't build according to the Agreement. He
confirmed that staff made their appropriate determination based on what they had to work
with.
Timestamp 1 :42:1 O
Commissioner Christen stated that generally building over an easement is not allowed.
He said that the Appellants compounded the issue and raised new issues in absence of
2
working towards a compromise. The Appellants had a compromise through the
Agreement and then unfortunately, changed the compromise. Commissioner Christen
concluded that he would uphold staff's recommendations based on facts of the issue.
A unanimous vote followed to uphold the Department Head's determination that the
Appellants' application was incomplete.
In conclusion, City Council has been brought into this matter because the Appellants
failed to follow their own, approved plans, violated the Construction & Encroachment
(private) Agreement, and the City-approved conditions. Furthermore, their continued
objections-challenging established municipal code and easement law-merely stem
from the fact that these legal protections now stand in the way of their non-compliant
construction.
Again, I urge the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission's decision and the
Director of the Community Development Department's determination of the appellants'
incomplete application without delay.
Respectfully,
Sylvia Soong
3
Subject: FW: Council Meeting of 5/6/25. Agenda Item No. 3 Peafowl Control
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2025 9:49 AM
To: Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Brandy Forbes <bforbes@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; James Zaren <jzoren@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Council Meeting of 5/6/25. Agenda Item No. 3 Peafowl Control
Good morning Noel,
The City Council is in receipt of your email and will be provided to them as late correspondence.
We appreciate you taking the time to write and share your thoughts on this delicate topic.
Take care,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
aram@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5202
Address:
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
From: Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 4:34 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
~ G£TlfON
~,.. Google Play
Subject: Council Meeting of 5/6/25. Agenda Item No. 3 Peafowl Control
I strongly support resuming control of the peafowl population. Before I moved to Rancho Palos Verdes, I
lived in a neighborhood in San Pedro that was overrun with peafowl. Between the messes they made and
the screaming in the middle of the night, they had an extremely negative impact on the quality of life. I
applaud the City's previous efforts to control their population, and sincerely hope that they will
continue.
Noel Park
6715 El Rodeo Rd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
562-413-5147
1 3.
Subject: FW: Landslide Movement Comments
-----Original Message-----
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2025 10:12 AM
To: mike k <keanemi@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; David Copp <dcopp@rpvca.gov>; Vina Ramos <Vramos@rpvca.gov>; Robert
Moya <rmoya@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Landslide Movement Comments
Good morning Mike,
The City Council is in receipt of your email along with my response.
We appreciated that you took the time to share your concerns on the City's fiscal condition and response to the landslide
with your professional background. I can assure you, especially after conducting the budget workshops on April 17 and
29, that the entire City Council and others share your concerns.
Much thought is being put into the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as it relates to the annual costs for the
operations and maintenance of the deep dewatering wells along with how to continue to respond to land movement and
fund other capital programs throughout the City. The City's CIP is a five-year program, and funding constraints are
apparent for years ahead. One difference in municipal finances compared to the private sector is that certain revenue
streams provide funds that are restricted for specific uses, such as gas tax. In other words, gas tax cannot be used to
respond to the landslide but must be used for roadway projects including PVDS (including the segment of the roadway
through the landslide).
The City is carefully ensuring that restricted funds continue to be used strategically on Citywide projects as well as
exploring how to reasonably generate revenue to support repairing and maintaining the City's increasingly aging
infrastructure such as storm drains.
If you are interested in reading more about the City's finances including the CIP, you can find the staff reports on the
City's website at the following link:
https://www.rpvca.gov/772/City-Meeting-Video-an?-Agendas
Let me know if you have any follow-up questions.
Ara Mihranian
City Manager
-----Original Message-----
From: mike k <keanemi@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 2:17 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Landslide Movement Comments
1 Jf.
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from keanemi@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe!!!.
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Mike Keane. I live next to UCLA Southbay (former Marymount) with my family. I have attended multiple
Land Movement Update meetings. I appreciate all the hard work the City Managements Members have contributed to
this challenging issue. Given changes and reduced funding with the BRIC program, I have concerns about the financial
health of our City for the future. If we keep reallocating City funds from other programs to pay for Emergency Response,
we will get so far behind in capital projects that we will never get caught up. I worked for several large Consumer
Products Companies where maintenance of manufacturing infrastructure was deferred many times due to budget
shortfalls. As a result, those facilities fell into a state of disrepair and could no longer operate at a profit. I understand
City Budgets are different than Manufacturing but there are many parallels.
I would like the City to create a funding cap per year that it will allocate to Landslide Projects. We cannot go insolvent. At
some point, home owners also need to take personal responsibility and move out of known Landslide Areas.
Thank you for your time.
Mike Keane
Sent from my iPhone
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Good morning Paul,
Ara Mihranian
Saturday, May 3, 2025 9:53 AM
PAUL CHRISTOPHER; LDG and Movement
CityClerk
RE: 32215 Schooner drive
The City is in receipt of your email and it along with my response will be provided to the City Council as late
correspondence on Tuesday.
I do suggest you review the staff report along with the exhibits that outline the boundary limits and rate of
movement throughout the landslide complex. The information is there for you to draw your own conclusions as it
relates to Schooner Drive.
You can find the staff report on the City's website at the following link:
https://rpv.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=2694
Let me know if you have any follow-up questions.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
aram@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5202
Address:
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
~ GHJTON
~ Google Play
~-\110:J V2rd~~'~,1 •;,,·heh PklV be
(fr_;josure, id
Unauthorin:,d di~;,:;21niri;:,1t!o1\ distribution, or
nut an intended rt:clplcnt., p!r;ase 'K1tlfy b1:?
lnt;~nde:d c1n!y for use
prohibited. rf '/CU r\:c0ved
COO}.W!l:!Uon,
From: PAUL CHRISTOPHER <paulchristopher@att.net>
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 4:07 PM
To: LDG and Movement <landmovement@rpvca.gov>
Subject: 32215 Schooner drive
';OU foe
I don't know,if the Landslide Emergency Update meeting on May 6 will address the following questions
to my satisfaction, but can someone tell me how close to Schooner Drive in Seaview the present slide
1 Lf.
movement has progressed in terms of blocks or mileage and what the City plans to do to abate the east
movement of the present slide from Klondike Canyon into Seaview? Thank you.
Respectfully,
Paul Christopher
2