Lauren Ramezani From: Sent: To: Susan Brooks Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:59 PM Carol Mueller Cc: Anthony Misetich; Lauren Ramezani; [email protected]; Efrain Ramirez; Doug Willmore Subject: Re: Trash cans Carol, I'm sorry for your situation with the neighbor. We have similar situations in my neighborhood, but it is not EDCO's responsibility to take trash cans back from the curb unless the homeowner pays for it. I'm CC'ing our Code Enforcement officer and staff for followup. Perhaps Lauren was able to followup. Susan Brooks Councilwoman Rancho Palos Verdes (Home) 310/ 541-2971 (City Hall) 310/544-5207 The view(s), opinion(s) and content expressed/contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the view(s), opinion(s), official positions or policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes or any of its employees, agents, contractors, Commissions or Committees (the "City"). It should be interpreted solely as the view('i), opinion(s) and/or work product of the individual author and should not be relied upon as the official position, direction or decision of the City. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 6, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Carol Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: Hello, Have either of you had a chance to address the trash can problem that I reported at the recent EDCO/City meeting? Nothing has changed and note: It is not my responsibility nor would I assume it is legal for me to pull in his cans, then bring them back out at appropriate time, and then return them. Or did you two decide that it was EDCO's problem? I don't recall. I am nearly 80 years old and do have medical problems. As I reported the house is vacant (forgot to say, they have been robbed once). The elder son is, apparently, taking responsibility for the trash and does a little hand watering and is around 60 years of age. These people have been a pain in the head, since I moved here. The old man continually entered my property and did constructive damage. Every time I do something, he advised me I can't do it. I merely tell them, go talk to RPV City Hall. What really set them off was when the city approved my addition in approx. 1998/2000. We did that because we wanted it, didn't even think about them so it was not a retaliation event. 1 3
Transcript
Lauren Ramezani
From: Sent: To:
Susan Brooks Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:59 PM Carol Mueller
I'm sorry for your situation with the neighbor. We have similar situations in my neighborhood, but it is not EDCO's responsibility to take trash cans back from the curb unless the homeowner pays for it.
I'm CC'ing our Code Enforcement officer and staff for followup. Perhaps Lauren was able to followup.
The view(s), opinion(s) and content expressed/contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the view(s), opinion(s), official positions or policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes or any of its employees, agents, contractors, Commissions or Committees (the "City"). It should be interpreted solely as the view('i), opinion(s) and/or work product of the individual author and should not be relied upon as the official position, direction or decision of the City.
Sent from my iPhone
~· On Jun 6, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Carol Mueller <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
Have either of you had a chance to address the trash can problem that I reported at the recent EDCO/City meeting? Nothing has changed and note: It is not my responsibility nor would I assume it is legal for me to pull in his cans, then bring them back out at appropriate time, and then return them. Or did you two decide that it was EDCO's problem? I don't recall.
I am nearly 80 years old and do have medical problems. As I reported the house is vacant (forgot to say, they have been robbed once). The elder son is, apparently, taking responsibility for the trash and does a little hand watering and is around 60 years of age.
These people have been a pain in the head, since I moved here. The old man continually entered my property and did constructive damage. Every time I do something, he advised me I can't do it. I merely tell them, go talk to RPV City Hall. What really set them off was when the city approved my addition in approx. 1998/2000. We did that because we wanted it, didn't even think about them so it was not a retaliation event.
1 3
I have had trees/bushes die mysteriously and most recently, I had to put a lock on the east side water bib at my home. Although, I cannot prove that he was stealing water as he, apparently, sits in the house to watch for me to leave. Since, I have done that, it appears that he retaliates further ....
Pis. advise if he has been contacted.
Thank you,
Carol Mueller
2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JUNE 6, 2017
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting.
Item No. Description of Material
3 Email from Troy Braswell
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, June 5, 2017**.
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20170606 additions revisions to agenda.doc
I find EDCO's service outstanding. However, I think they need better waste and recycle guides for customers. Their website currently has a Recycling Do's and Don't page but it's just a boring list.
There are lots of examples of "keep it simple" creative graphical charts that other companies use (examples below). I would like to see something similar posted on the EDCO website and distributed to all customers.
Sincerely,
Troy Braswell
~(<::;;? RECYCLING ~~ U~ ONLY ~~
Put these items in your recycling cart . DO NOT put these items In your recycling cart.
Plastic jugs
Phone books
Glass Jars & bottJes
Plastlc bags
•
Clean metal food cans
Corrugated cardboard lfl•U•n•d)
Alumlnum cans
Boxboard, cereal boxes, frozen food bozes
alumlnum foll wrap and pans
Paper Cartons· Miik carton&
and juice boxes
Take out pizza boxes Flower pots, plastic toys
Styrofoam containers, styrofoam peanuts
or packing
Frozen food bags
l::::· i1 ~
Light bulbs, drinking glasses, other glassware
Pots&: pans, scrap metal, ceramics
't~~ REPUBLIC Y'V SERVICES
Chip bags
Hazardous or toxic product containers
Plastic and metal hangers
Food 8r wet waste, food contaminated paper
platH and napkins
Propane tanks
3
Place these items in your blue recycling cart. This guide does not include all recyclable item>. Visit wirw;111ilntOJK)/i'im,gov/tNU!SOltfor more detailed information.
Cartons Rinse.
• Milk cartons • Ju ice boi<es · Soup, bfoth and wine cartons
N 01 Paper or Styrofoam"' egg cartons
Metal Rinse. ·Food and beverage cans ·Aluminum foil and trays · Decorative tins and pie tins
NO: Paint cans or containers that held hazardous substances such as paint thinner and automoti\C? fluids
Pa er ·Mail, office and school papers • Magazines, newspaper and inserts
• Phone books · Shredded paper in closed paper bags ·Books (with hard covers removed)
Boxes: ·cardboard • Cereal, cracker, shoe and gift boxes • Refrigerated food boxes ·Toothpaste, medication and other toiletry boxes
N 0: Paper ke cream tubs or coffee cups
Glass Rinse and leave lids on jars. ·Food and beverage bottlesandjars
NO: Drinking glasS'es, window glass, ceramics or mirrors
Plastics Rinse and leave caps on. BottkmmdJugs: ·Water, soda and juice bottles
• Milk and juice.jugs • Ketchup and salad dressing bottles
• Dishwashing liquid bottles and detergent jugs • Shampoo, soap and lotion bottles
Cups and containers: • Yogurt, puddif"IQ and fruit cups
• Disposable cups and bowls • Margarine, cottage cheese, and other cont<iiners • Produce, deli and takeout containers
Packaging: · Clear packaging from toys and electronics
NO: Plastic bags, Styrofoam ... or containers that held hazardous substances such as motor oil or antifreeze
Cardboard Cans Rinse. · Chips, nuts and other snacks ·Frozen juices and refrigerated dough · Powdered drink mixes and baby formula • Powdered cleaners
NO: Automotive grease or waxrontaimm
Place in bag on top of cart.
Batteries Tape the positive(+) terminal of lithium and lithium-ion batteries to prevent fires. Place in clear plastic bag and place on top of your racycling cart.
NO: Automotive batteries
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JUNE 5, 2017
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, June 6, 2017 City Council meeting:
Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Waters, Assistant Engineer Flannigan, Public Works Consultant Reis, and April Sandell; Email from April Sandell
Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst and April Sandell
Email from April Sandell (see Item 0)
Emails from: Jim Knight; Guri Otterlei and Peter Gasteiger
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20170606 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ("Amendment") by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ("City") and SUNBEAM CONSULTING ("Consultant") is effective as of the 6th day of June, 2017.
RECITALS
A. City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement for Professional Services dated September 6, 2016 ( "Agreement") whereby Consultant agreed to provide Professional Engineering Design Services for the Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project, Area 7.
B. The City now desires to expand the scope of work to add the residential roads in the northern portion of Crest Road East, from approximately 400 feet north of Ganado Road to the northerly City limit, to Area 7 of the Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project. Including this area of Crest Road East in Area 7 will make the underlying construction of Area 7 more cost-efficient.
C. The City and Consultant also now desire to expand the scope of work to add construction oversight services for the construction of Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project, Area 7, and also add construction materials testing services.
D. City and Consultant now desire to amend the Agreement to increase the Contract Sum to $429,358.30 to incorporate the expanded scope of work described above, and to extend the term of the Agreement by one year.
TERMS
1. Contract Changes. The Agreement is amended as provided herein.
A. Section 1.2 "Consultant's Proposal" is hereby amended to read, in its entirety, as follows (deleted text is indicated in strikethrough, added text in bold and italics):
"The Scope of Services shall include the Consultant's scope of work or bid which shall be incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of such proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern. This section shall include the expanded proposal submitted by Consultant for additional services dated January 16, 2017."
B. Section 2.1 "Contract Sum" is hereby amended to read, in its entirety, as follows (deleted text is indicated in strikethrough, added text in bold and italics):
"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 Two Hundred and Seventy Nine Thousand One Hundred and Twelve Della-rs and Fifty Cents ($279,112.50) Four Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand, Three Hundred Fifty Eight Dollars and Thirty Cents ($429,358.30) (the "Contract Sum"), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1.8."
C. Section 3.4 "Term" is hereby amended to read, in its entirety, as follows (deleted text is indicated in strikethrough, added text in bold and italics):
"Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding one ( 1) two (2) years from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance( Exhibit" D")."
D. Exhibit A "Scope of Work" is amended to include Exhibit A-1 "Scope of Work-Additional Services", which is attached as Exhibit "1" to this Amendment.
E. Section IV of Exhibit A "Scope of Work" is hereby amended to read, in its entirety, as follows (deleted text is indicated in strikethrough, added text in bold and italics):
"Consultant has been hired to perform the services described in this Agreement, which include the creation of one or more designs, drawings, or plans ("Designs"). Consultant acknowledges that City has budgeted the amount of Four Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,100,000) for actual construction of the Projects (" Project Budget"). The Project Budget includes the cost of constructing both Project 1 and Project 2, described above. Consultant shall be responsible to do Project estimating to create Designs that will enable the Projects to be constructed within the Project Budget. In the event that the City solicits bids for construction of the Projects, as such Projects have been designed by Consultant, and the sum of the lowest responsible bids for each Project exceeds the Project Budget by 10%, Consultant agrees to revise the previous Designs, or to create new Designs, at no additional cost to City, so that a new price can be negotiated or the Projects can be rebid so that the Projects do not exceed the Project Budget. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant is not responsible to provide revised Designs at no cost to the City if such revisions are due to fef changes in the scope of either Project 1 or Project 2 initiated by the City unilaterally; and all such changes shall include appropriate mutually agreed changes to the Project Budget, however, Consultant expressly agrees that the Additional Services provided/or in Amendment No. 1 will not re uire changes to the Project Budget."
F. Section IV of Exhibit C "Schedule of Compensation" is hereby amended to read, in its entirety, as follows (deleted text is indicated in strikethrough, added text in bold and italics):
"The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed $279, 112.50 $429,358.30, as provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement."
G.
01203.0006/360726.9
Exhibit C "Schedule of Compensation" is hereby amended to include Exhibit C-1 "Schedule of Compensation-Additional Services", which is attached as Exhibit "2" to this Amendment.
-2-
H. Exhibit D "Schedule of Performance" is hereby amended to include Exhibit D-1 "Schedule of Performance-Additional Services", which is attached as Exhibit "3" to this Amendment.
2. Continuing Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Agreement, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. From and after the date of this Amendment, whenever the term "Agreement" appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement, as amended by this Amendment to the Agreement.
3. Affirmation of Agreement; Warranty Re Absence of Defaults. City and Consultant each ratify and reaffirm each and every one of the respective rights and obligations arising under the Agreement. Each party represents and warrants to the other that there have been no written or oral modifications to the Agreement other than as provided herein. Each party represents and warrants to the other that the Agreement is currently an effective, valid, and binding obligation.
Consultant represents and warrants to City that, as of the date of this Amendment, City is not in default of any material term of the Agreement and that there have been no events that, with the passing of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a material default under the Agreement.
City represents and warrants to Consultant that, as of the date of this Amendment, Consultant is not in default of any material term of the Agreement and that there have been no events that, with the passing of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a material default under the Agreement.
4. Adequate Consideration. The parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment.
5. Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) the entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
01203.0006/360726.9 -3-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first-above written.
ATTEST:
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
Dave Aleshire, City Attorney
CITY:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a municipal corporation
Brian Campbell, Mayor
CONSULTANT:
SUNBEAM CONSULTING
By: Name: Title:
By: Name: Title:
Address: 1817 Josie Avenue Long Beach, CA 90815
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2) Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT'S SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT'S BUSINESS ENTITY.
01203.0006/360726.9 -4-
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE§ 1189
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
On before me, _______________ _
Date Here Insert Name and Title of Officer
personally appeared
Name(s) of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose
name(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.
Place Notary Seal Above
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary Public
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE§ 1189
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
On before me, _______________ _
Date Here Insert Name and Title of Officer
Name(s) of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose
name(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.
Place Notary Seal Above
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary Public
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT "A-1"
SCOPE OF WORK-ADDITIONAL SERVICES
I. Consultant shall perform the following tasks:
A. Additional Design Services for Crest Road East:
Consultant will provide the engineering design services and tangible work products described as Tasks 1 & 2 in Exhibit "A" of this Agreement, as well as the Survey Monument Investigation and Restoration services described as Task 3 in Exhibit "A" of this Agreement, for the residential streets in the northern portion of Crest Road East, from approximately 400 feet north of Ganado Road to the northerly City limit. The northern portion of Crest Road East, from approximately 400 feet north of Ganado Road to the northerly City limit, shall be included in the Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project, Area 7.
B. Construction Oversight Services:
Consultant shall provide construction oversight services for the construction of the Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project, Area 7. Consultant will provide an experienced construction technician to oversee the performance and quality issues of the construction general consultant, construction inspector, and coordinate with the testing laboratory for testing and validation of materials during construction. It is the responsibility of Consultant to ensure compliance with the schedule to be established by the City and the contractor hired by the City for the construction of the Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project, Area 7 or to advise City of any developments which will prevent compliance with the schedule.
The technician shall work an average of 5 hours per day for 90 working days during construction activities.
In conjunction with these construction oversight services, the Consultant will provide the following tangible work products to the City:
1. Copies of correspondence to the Consultant, Inspector, and City.
C. Materials Testing Services:
Consultant shall provide Materials Testing Services for the construction of the Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project, Area 7. Consultant will provide for a construction material testing laboratory to observe, sample, test, and certify that materials incorporated into construction meet specification requirements.
In conjunction with these materials testing services, the Consultant will provide the following tangible work products to the City:
1. Site reports, including pertinent site data, photographs, materials, location, consultant, and work being performed.
2. Laboratory test results and statements of conformance/non-conformance.
EXHIBIT2
EXHIBIT "C-1"
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION- ADDITIONAL SERVICES
I. Consultant shall perform the following Services, which are described in Exhibit "A-1" of this Agreement, at the following rates:
Item I Amount 1. Plans, Specifications and Estimat e for AC and PCC pavement
repairs and improvements for CREST ROAD:
lA. Prelim inary Draft Submittal
lB. Final Subm ittal, with Engineers stamp and .signature
lC. Attend Preconstruction Meeting
10. Construction Support
lE. As-Built Plans
Subt ot al
2. Plans, Specifications and Estimate for Pavement Rehabilitation
lm1novements, Striping, Sign Replacement and tnstallation
lm1novements for CREST ROAD:
2A. Preliminary Draft Submittal
2B. Final Submittal, w ith Engineers .stamp and signature
2C. Attend Preconstruction Meeting
20. Construction Support
2E. As-Built Plans
Subtotal
3. Survey Monument Investigation and Restoration for CREST
outs, and File Maps with City and County; Traffic Control $ 12,900.80 ---------
4. Construction Oversight during construction of Area 7:
4. 5 hours/day for 90 working days @ $ ·122Jhour
5. Allowance for Material Testing Services:
5_ Material Testing Services (incl. 10% overhead cost)
Subt otal
TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,185.00
3,885.00
69,275.80
54,900.00
20,000.00
150,245.80
Each item in IA-IE and 2A-2E shall be payable in a lump sum upon the completion of the item. The determination of whether an item is complete will be in the sole discretion of the City.
Items 3B and 3C shall be payable by percentage completed.
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT "D-1"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE-ADDITIONAL SERVICES
I. Consultant shall perform the Services described in Exhibit "A-1" of this Agreement in accordance with the following schedule:
A. Consultant shall perform the engineering design review services for the northern portion of Crest Road East (described in Exhibit A-l(I)(A)) within 60 days of the execution of Amendment No. 1 to this Agreement.
B. Consultant shall perform the construction oversight (described in Exhibit A-1 (I)(B)) and construction materials testing services (described in Exhibit Al(I)(C) in accordance with the schedule developed by the City and the contractor to be retained by the City for the construction of the Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project, Area 7.
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
April Sandell <[email protected]> Friday, June 02, 2017 2:12 PM James Flannigan; Matt Waters; Lea Reis [email protected]; [email protected]; CC Re: Attention" Matt/ re: Eastview dog park plan/ Jun 06, 2017 Cc meeting
Mr. Flannigan, Matt and Ms. Reis,
Thank you for your attention to my interest in Eastview Park plans. At this point, it appears chain link fencing will be used to separate the off leashers. If I have read the plans correctly and chain link is the choice I would hope other fencing options will be considered before all is said and done.
In regards to the placement of "fitness" stations. These city funded opportunities to exercise ruin the natural beauty of a open park.
Finally, I was very disappointed that no concrete ping pong tables are in the plans. (: (note: mv earlier Eastview Park "input" was my request (or a ping pong table )
Please know, I am only opposed to off leash dogs. Moreover I understand each dog deserves equal access to the public parks. To do less would be discriminatory. Right? Ha.
Once again .. thank you all.
Have meaningful weekend.
April L. Sandell
On Jun 1, 2017, at 3:46 PM, James Flannigan <[email protected]> wrote:
Ms. Sandell,
I would like to follow up with your concern about the blue trash receptacles at City bus stops. We have budgeted for new receptacles at bus stops next year. Please let me know if you would like an additional info.
Thank you,
James Flannigan Assistant Engineer
<image002.jpg>City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov P (310) 544-5277 F (310) 544-5292
This e .. rnail rnessagc contains information belonging to the Cty of Rancho Palos Verd,~s, whicr1 may be pdvikged, confidentiai and/or protected from disclostw<\ Tr1c inforrm1tion h intcrn:ied oniy for use of the individual or entity named, Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, rn· copyinq is st!'ictly prohibited. lf reo.:ivcd this email in error, or are not dn intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Trunk you for your assistcmce and
From: Lea Reis Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 2:58 PM
I will be managing the construction of the dog park in Eastview Park. If you would like to take a look at the plans, you may go to this website and click on the link at the bottom of the bid posting:
Currently, we don't have plans to replace the trash bins in the corners you mentioned, but I will take a look during construction, and address it with Recs and Parks to see if it's something we can add in.
Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Lea Reis
From: Matt Waters Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 2:48 PM To: April Sandell <hvy!;L;;[email protected]> Cc: Lea Reis <Lrt;is,(@rnvca.gov>; James Flannigan <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Attention 11 Matt/ re: Eastview dog park plan/ Jun 06, 2017 Cc meeting
I have forwarded your email and voicemail to Lea Reis and James Flannigan in our Public Works Department. They should be able to help you with your questions about Eastview visuals, diagrams, materials, and trash receptacles.
Regarding your question about leash laws: Dogs on leash will be allowed in the park area located outside of the off-leash dog park, as long as the leash is no longer than 6 feet and the leash is held by a person. This is the dog leash policy at all City of RPV parks.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv DJ?!tw@mY.:£~LRQ.Y. - (310) 544-5218 p - (310) 544-5291 f
<image003.png>
2
From: April Sandell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 2:09 PM To: Parks <[email protected]> Subject: Attention " Matt/ re: Eastview dog park plan/ Jun 06, 2017 Cc meeting
Hi Matt,
This correspondence is a follow up to my earlier phone message today.
As I mentioned earlier ...... .I would like to see some visual plan , sketch or drawing of sorts for the planned dog park as well as the type of material fencing separating the off lease dogs from those dogs on lease. Also, can you tell me whether or not dogs on lease will be allowed in the area not designated for off lease dogs?
I noted the plan includes new trash receptacles and wonder if the city could factor in the cost of additional new receptacles to be placed at the corners of Delsonde , Ave. Aprenda , Toscanni and Western A venue in Eastview. I have noticed many new trash receptacles at various other RPV locations outside Eastview. The existing age old faded blue trash bins look horrible.
Thank you in advance for your time, attention and response.
Subject: June 06 CC Agenda/ Item "O" Eastview Park Fitness Zone and Dog Park I Agenda Item "U" Lower Hesse Park Improvement Project
LATE CORRESPONDENCE for the record. CC Agenda June 06, 2017
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Having reviewed the city's plans and community outreach regarding agenda item "O" (Eastview Park), indicators show strong opposition for dog park as well as a very weak desire for fitness areas. With all due respect I must ask why this plan for Eastview Park?
Hopefully, supporters will speak publicly on the item or mention letters in support. I don't know anyone of them but that certainly doesn't mean their not there.
As far as, "U" (Lower Hesse Park Improvements) .... nice at about twice the price!
Sincerely,
April L. Sandell
a~ u. 1
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Kit Fox Monday, June 05, 2017 9:41 AM April Sandell CC; CityClerk RE: Border Issue Update/. Agenda item Jun 06,2017 - Item P
If the project is in Rancho Palos Verdes, it wi!I not be included in the Border Issues Status Report. I'm not aware of any such proposal on the San Pedro side of the street at that intersection.
Will the city track the affordable unit possibly at Summerland and Western Ave.? I know the current commercial tenants are moving out due to some rumors of redevelopment as well as the more significant property sale/transfer.
Earlier the RPV planning commission spoke about this issue with some notable concerns for existing residents to the the south of the proposed idea. April
Thank you for your email. It will be provided to the City Council as Late Correspondence on Item P on tomorrow night's agenda.
Please note that Staff continues to monitor several of the projects and issues that you mentioned, even though they are no longer listed on the Border Issues Status Report. These include the Highpoint (former Ponte Vista) project, the Navy fuel depot and the Rancho LPG facility. Also, several of the items that you mentioned are projects or issues in Rancho Palos Verdes, which are not included on the Border Issues Status Report. These include the ALPR camera project, the redevelopment of the former Coco's restaurant and Eastview Park.
The City appreciates your involvement in the initiation of the Border Issues Status Report. As new projects and issues emerge adjacent to the Eastview area, Staff will track them in future Border Issues Status Reports.
Sincerely,
1 r.
Kit Fox, AICP Senior Administrative Analyst City Mana3er's Off ice
City d Rancho P t1los Verdes 30940 llawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palas Verdes, CA 90275 T: (310) 544-5226 f: (310) 544-5291 E: [email protected]
<image001.jpg>
From: April Sandell [mfillto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 7:51 AM To: CC <[email protected]> Subject: Border Issue Update/. Agenda item Jun 06,2017
Dear Mayor and Council Members;
At an earlier time, the Border Issues served a benefit and purpose to the RPV community . As you are aware, there are a
number of current issues not limited to the Highpoint development, Navy Fuel Defense property, plans for placing an over abundance of surveillance cameras around
Western Ave, butane tanks, redevelopment of shopping center/coco's area and drainage /Eastview Park/affordable housing units near Summerland at Western Ave.
Not to mention the updated San Pedro Community Plan which seems to have incorporated RPV's Western Ave. development plans as both cities are subject to the same issues.
(FYI- I am not complaining without cause ...... please know that at the outset of the earliest formation of the LA neighborhood councils (years ago) I made a significant
attempt to see to it that RPV residents had a seat at the LA table. As it turns out and long story short, RPV residents are welcomed to attend and find a seat but that's it. In any event, it's
disheartening to see Border Issues fade as an agenda item. )
Regards,
April L. Sandell
2
From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:
Council members,
Jim Knight <[email protected]> Tuesday, May 30, 2017 10:50 AM cc LM Code amendment Knight code amendment letter.docx
Attached is a letter concerning an upcoming agenda item that will be before you regarding a Landslide Moratorium code amendment.
TO: The RPV City Council
FROM: Jim Knight
DATE: May 30, 2017
RE: Code Amendment (Planning Case No. ZON2017-00157)
Council Members,
At an upcoming City Council meeting one of your agenda items will be asking you to make a zoning amendment to accommodate the development of one house in the Landslide Moratorium Area of Portuguese Bend. The particular code amendment is very troublesome to say the least. I say this not to criticize the property owner or as argument against development but instead with concern over what is being asked of you as a representative of the City and with regard to your legal and fiduciary responsibilities as Council members.
It is my understanding that the justification for this code amendment is based on a settlement agreement made three years ago in which the property owner was promised by the City the right to replace a condemned home that had encroached onto City-owned land due to landslide movement. The existing Landside Moratorium development code has an LME exclusion permit process for new construction if, and only if, the property owner replaces the same footprint home in the same location given extensive damage to the existing home. But apparently the property owner in this case could not comply with the existing code as the location of the home in question (which was subsequently demolished by the City) was unstable and on city-owned land. So, without a way to comply with the existing code, you are now being asked to amend the LM code to allow the construction of one home in another location within the LM area to satisfy the settlement agreement.
The Standard State Zoning Enabling Act states "all such regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building throughout each district". This LMO amendment you are being asked to approve appears to be a classic case
1 s.
of spot zoning wherein you are being asked to grant development rights to one individual that other property owners in that same zone do not have. The settlement agreement may have had good intentions of avoiding city litigation costs, but a greater cost could now occur by exposing the City to agreeing to violate the law and may be ruled invalid because of arbitrary and unreasonable treatment within a zoning ordinance as it is for one individual owner and not for the benefit to the community or protection of other property owners within the zone. This is well established law.
One could make the argument that 16 litigants in the Monks case were allowed to circumvent the LMO. But this was a court order within the confines of our legal system. A settlement agreement is between two parties and must comply with existing laws.
I highly recommend you have an extensive discussion with the City Attorney in closed session concerning these issues and search for some other resolution before deciding on the requested LM code amendment.
Thank you for your service to the city.
Jim Knight
2
TO: The RPV City Council FROM: Jim Knight DATE: May 30, 2017 RE: Code Amendment (Planning Case No. ZON2017-00157)
Council Members,
At an upcoming City Council meeting one of your agenda items will be asking you to make a zoning amendment to accommodate the development of one house in the Landslide Moratorium Area of Portuguese Bend. The particular code amendment is very troublesome to say the least. I say this not to criticize the property owner or as argument against development but instead with concern over what is being asked of you as a representative of the City and with regard to your legal and fiduciary responsibilities as Council members.
It is my understanding that the justification for this code amendment is based on a settlement agreement made three years ago in which the property owner was promised by the City the right to replace a condemned home that had encroached onto City-owned land due to landslide movement. The existing Landside Moratorium development code has an LME exclusion permit process for new construction if, and only if, the property owner replaces the same footprint home in the same location given extensive damage to the existing home. But apparently the property owner in this case could not comply with the existing code as the location of the home in question (which was subsequently demolished by the City) was unstable and on cityowned land. So, without a way to comply with the existing code, you are now being asked to amend the LM code to allow the construction of one home in another location within the LM area to satisfy the settlement agreement.
The Standard State Zoning Enabling Act states "all such regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building throughout each district". This LMO amendment you are being asked to approve appears to be a classic case of spot zoning wherein you are being asked to grant development rights to one individual that other property owners in that same zone do not have. The settlement agreement may have had good intentions of avoiding city litigation costs, but a greater cost could now occur by exposing the City to agreeing to violate the law and may be ruled invalid because of arbitrary and unreasonable treatment within a zoning ordinance as it is for one individual owner and not for the benefit to the community or protection of other property owners within the zone. This is well established law.
One could make the argument that 16 litigants in the Monks case were allowed to circumvent the LMO. But this was a court order within the confines of our legal
system. A settlement agreement is between two parties and must comply with existing laws.
I highly recommend you have an extensive discussion with the City Attorney in closed session concerning these issues and search for some other resolution before deciding on the requested LM code amendment.
Thank you for your service to the city.
Jim Knight
From: Sent: To: Subject:
-----Original Message-----
So Kim Thursday, June 01, 2017 1:23 PM CityClerk Late Corr for 6/6 Reg Business No. 5
We strongly oppose the building on 48 Cinnamon Lane (empty lot currently under the Portuguese Bend building moratorium), and have signed and support the arguments in the group letter for appeal to the RPV Planning Commission and Department's decisions (dated 3/15/17).
A separate issue (not addressed in the appeals letter, but also) of great concern is the city staff's decision to allow a prefabricated house on steel footing on this property. This is unlike any other construction in this part of the Portuguese Bend neighborhood or Zone 2. Anyone that has followed developments in this area (in particular the RPV Planning Department), knows the millions of dollars recently invested in properties and new construction immediately surrounding 48 Cinnamon (including the "Monk's lots"). No-one here is doing prefabricated housing or steel type foundations. The city may be allowing this type of construction in the active landslide side of the neighborhood (surrounding Peppertree Lane, where many of the homes are built on steel adjustable footing, homes are continually moving, safety IS an issue and property values low), but no one in Zone 2 is doing this. If the city allows this type of construction on 48 Cinnamon, it's likely our homes may become classified and grouped with the ACTIVE and moving landslide area. We believe that this construction will ADVERSELY AFFECT our property values by a large percentage and add to the stigma about the Portuguese Bend land movement and building safety.
Also, allowing this for 48 Cinnamon will set precedence and open to allow such cheap trailer-type housing on the other currently empty lots in our neighborhood. It is a slap in the face to everyone who invested heavily in this neighborhood, hired professional geologist and builders {which was a requirement imposed by the Planning Department), and paid dearly to ensure quality construction to comply with every requirement and request for the city to approve. Please don't let our beautiful Portuguese Bend neighborhood turn into a trailer park, and in particular the Zone 2 portion and Cinnamon Lane where multimillion dollar homes are being constructed only few yards from number 48 (on $1M buildable lots).
Does the city allow prefabricated housing elsewhere in our otherwise extremely highly priced neighborhoods and city? If generally not allowed, then why is it allowed here in this part of Portuguese Bend? If building is allowed on 48 Cinnamon, why wouldn't the owner have go through the same building requirements as every other new construction home owner, including the Monk-lots?
Finally, a lawsuit settlement should not have as consequence to bring down standards, neighborhoods, and housing prices for the remaining neighborhood. We strongly believe this "settlement" - and subsequent staff approvals - will inevitably do this. We hope the RPV city council will review the ill-informed settlement of the prior outgoing city attorney, and the recently proposed code amendments (designed to circumvent city laws and allow an ILLEGAL agreement) - and right the wrongs that have been agreed or proposed.
