CC MINS 19970125 ADJMINUTES
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED MEETING
JANUARY 25, 1997
This meeting was called to Order at 8:30 A.M. by Mayor John McTaggart at the Hesse
Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. Following the Pledge of
Allegiance, roll call was answered as follows:
PRESENT: Hollingsworth, Lyon, Byrd, Ferraro, Mayor McTaggart
ABSENT: None
Also present were City Manager Paul Bussey, Assistant City Manager Brent Mattingly,
Finance Director Dennis McLean, City Attorney Carol Lynch, Public Works Director
Les Evans, and City Clerk Jo Purcell.
City Manager Bussey explained the process by which this meeting would be conducted
and announced that speaker slips were available so people could fill out a question for
the Council to address.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Councilman Byrd moved, seconded by Councilwoman Lyon to approve the Agenda.
Motion carried.
Zone II Landslide Moratorium Exception Issues
Public Works Director Evans presented the January 25, 1997 staff memorandum which
recommended that staff be directed to proceed with the preparation and circulation of a
mitigated negative declaration as recommended by the environmental consultant and
direct the City Attorney to prepare appropriate code amendments which would allow
development in Zone II.
Summarizing the staff report, Director Evans then gave a detailed background as
contained in the January 25 memorandum stating that a section of the ancient
landslide area, dormant for many centuries, began moving in the lower hills above the
Abalone Cove portion of the Rancho Palos Verdes coastline between 1974 and 1978.
Due largely to dewatering efforts by the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District
(ACLAD), this area has shown no appreciable movement since 1980. The Abalone
Cove landslide movement was measured at a rate of more than one foot per year.
Given that substantial land movement and subsequent damage to local infrastructure
and homes, the City Council on September 5, 1978 established a moratorium on new
development in and around the active landslide mass. The moratorium was a solution
for an area which was largely unknown. A line was drawn around the ancient landslide
and building was prohibited. The understanding was that as the landslide became
more known, the blanket approach to prohibiting building could be replaced by
addressing the problem area by area.
Zone 11 History
Director Evans next detailed the history of the Zone II Area stating that on May 26,
1993, Dr. Perry Ehlig prepared a memorandum to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Director of Public Works entitled "Suggested Guidelines for Permitting Development in
the Moratorium Area." That memorandum divided the moratorium area into eight
zones based on their geologic characteristics. A geologic description and history of
each of the zones was outlined by Dr. Ehlig as well as suggested conditions and
guidelines under which future development might be permitted. The Ehlig
memorandum was presented to the City Council on June 1, 1993 with the following
recommendation:
"If Council so desires, direct staff to prepare an ordinance establishing overlay
zones to allow development in the Moratorium under specific guidelines."
After considering the Ehlig memorandum and the staff recommendation, the City
Council directed staff to perform any necessary environmental work which would be
required to support a proposal for development in the moratorium area. Subsequently,
in August, 1993, given the high cost of performing a comprehensive environmental
analysis for all eight zones, the Council directed staff to focus the environmental review
on the establishment of development standards for only Zone 11.
In February, 1994, Staff presented the estimated cost of Zone II environmental
documents to the Council, as well as funding options for the Council's consideration.
At that time, the Council agreed to table the matter until after the discussion of the
proposed Abalone Cove Sewer System project, at an upcoming Town Hall meeting,
since one of the funding options presented by staff involved expanding the sewer
system environmental impact report (EIR) to include an analysis of Zone 11
development. The Town Hall meeting was eventually held on April 1 S, 1994 and the
RDA Board directed staff to prepare the necessary environmental documentation for
the proposed Abalone Cove Sewer System project without comment on whether or not
to include a Zone II analysis.
On July 5, 1994 the RDA Board awarded the Abalone Cove Sewer System EIR contract
to Impact Sciences, Inc, and agreed that the environmental analysis for the proposed
City Council Minutes
January 25, 1997
Page 2
Zone II development should be processed separately from the Sewer System EIR. The
RDA Board also agreed that the Zone II environmental documents should be prepared
by the Sewer System EIR consultant thus making it easier for the Zone II analysis to
"piggyback" on the information garnered for the Sewer System EIR.
At their February 21, 1995 meeting the City Council approved preparation of
environmental documents for the Zone II Landslide Exception Project by Impact
Sciences, Inc. and authorized the use of City General Funds for the work because it
was determined to be a zoning issue, rather than an issue under the purview of the
Redevelopment Agency. By October 3, 1995 the work on the Zone II environmental
document had reached a point where geological conditions needed to be addressed.
At this time the City Council authorized staff to utilize the services of the City's
consulting geologists to review Dr. Ehlig's work and the previous geotechnical studies.
Referring to a Landslide Area map mounted for audience and council viewing, Dr. Ehlig
explained and described how these zones were identified and explained some of their
characteristics as explained in his memorandum of May 26, 1993 which was made a
part of the agenda packet.
Peer Review Consultants
Director Evans then summarized the process used by the Peer Review Group to
approve these recommendations: five Peer Review consultants were approved by the
Redevelopment Agency on March 7, 1995. Of the five Peer Review consultants four
are geologists and one is a geotechnical engineer. The Peer Review Group was not
formed to serve as a five member panel, but rather as individual consultants with
special expertise who could be called upon, individually or several at a time, to assist
the City in resolving geotechnical issues. In describing the qualifications of these
consultants, the distinction between the designation as "geologist" and as
"geotechnical engineer" should be helpful. The basic difference between the
geotechnical engineer and the geologist is type of education. The geotechnical
engineer is trained and licensed as an engineer. The geologist specializes in a study
of the earth beneath its surface. A geologist is primarily concerned with spacial
relationships, through observation and description, such as date, age, structure and
nature of material. These are qualitative things. A geotechnical engineer is more
concerned about physical measurements such as strength of materials. These things
are quantitative. The geotechnical engineer is involved in modeling, formulas,
mathematics and testing and usually provides a product centered around analysis of
data often in the form of a series of graphs and tables. The geologist works more with
understanding where the earth's planes (layers) are. Several of the Peer Review
Consultants specialize in hydrogeology which concentrates on the influence of
City Council Minutes
January 25, 1997
Page 3
groundwater and surface water in the earth.
Continuing with his report, Director Evans said that the Abalone Cove landslide is
unique because most of the "fixes'' involve control of water (groundwater and surface).
Therefore, our Peer consultant's expertise in hydrogeology is important. The Peer
Review Group has a lot of local experience and consider one another well - balanced
and knowledgeable.
The next matter to be explained by Director Evans was the Analysis Process followed
by the Peer Review Consultants: the Scope of Work for the Peer consultant's review of
the Zone II Moratorium Exception proposal (all five consultants participated in this
assignment) was prepared by Patrick Shires of William Cotton and Associates. The
Scope was as follows:
I. Technical Research
II. Field Investigation
III. Technical Analysis
IV. Meetings, Reporting and Consultation
The Peer Review Consultants reviewed the documents and maps and made field visits
to the Zone II site. They also met on January 16, 1996 and again on March 7, 1996 to
discuss their opinions. As a result of their review, the following list of recommended
conditions for development was prepared. The list was discussed and agreed on at the
March 7, 1996 meeting.
a. The property owner(s) must sign a covenant and agreement to participate in
ACLAD and other recognized or approved districts whose purpose is to maintain
the land in a geologically stable condition. The property owner (s) must also
sign an indemnification and hold harmless agreement with the City. No
proposed building activity may cause lessening of stability in the zone.
b. The property owner must pay a fee to help defray the cost of installing additional
monitoring and producing wells which may be required or install a monitoring
well on his /her property.
C. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a geotechnical report must be submitted
to, and approved by the City's geotechnical reviewers indicating what, if any,
local geologic hazards must be corrected prior to, or during construction. Said
report shall specify foundation designs based on field and laboratory studies.
Grading exceeding 250 cubic yards shall require special approval by the City
-staff.
City Council Minutes
January 25, 1997
Page 4
d. No new houses may be built prior to installation of a public sanitary sewer
system to serve the Abalone Cove area. A covenant and agreement must be
executed agreeing to such a sewer system and connection. Necessary
easements must be provided.
e. No building construction may be undertaken .prior to installation of storm
drainage improvements to carry runoff to Altamira Canyon and improvements to
Altamira Canyon to prevent infiltration through the canyon bottom.
f. All lot drainage deficiencies, if any, identified by the City staff, must be corrected.
The designs of all pools, ponds and sumps will be subject to City review and
approval.
g. Runoff from all buildings and paved areas must be collected and directed to the
street or to an approved drainage course as approved by the City Engineer.
h. All other relevant building code requirements must be met.
Individual lot stability must be at least 1.5 (although this was not included on the
original list of conditions, all the consultants agreed that it should be required).
Each of the Peer consultants signed the recommended conditions for development.
Since neither the City Manager nor the Director of Public Works participated directly in
the Zone 11 review process, meetings were later arranged with each of the Peer
consultants to discuss their opinions and conclusions. As a result of these discussions
several significant issues regarding the review process, factor of safety, control of
sewage and drainage and other suggestions for additional conditions of development
were raised. A summary of the issues follows:
Review Process
The reports which were reviewed by the Peer Group consultants were studies prepared
for the nearby Filiorum property and the Peacock Hill property. other than the base
maps, the water table maps and the field visits, no site specific documentation is
available for Zone 11. Basically, the consultants felt comfortable with the stability of
Zone 11 based on their review of the reports on adjacent properties and because the
geology of the area was sufficiently known and is presently stable and has been
grossly stable for a long period. The consultants also believe that the conditions which
City Council Minutes
January 25, 1997
Page 5
they recommend will improve the stability of the area.
Factor of Safety
Regarding the actual gross stability of Zone II the consultants concluded that the factor
of safety must be greater than 1.0. How much greater than 1.0 they could not
accurately say, but the comment was made that it was probably about 1.2. They
agreed on the following statement:
The geology of the area shown as Zone 2 on the attached map
is sufficiently known and represented to us to acknowledge that
the area is presently stable and has been grossly stable for a
long period. No statement or purpose of the Peer Review Group
is intended to cause a lessening of that stability. It is our sole
purpose to assure that the stability of this area, known as Zone 2,
and adjacent areas is, if anything, increased. It is assumed that
no development on vacant lots will be allowed prior to the install-
ation of the public sanitary sewer and storm drainage improvements
now planned and as previously recommended by the Abalone Cove
Technical Panel.
The overall consensus of the Peer Review Group is that the gross stability of the Zone
11 area is unknown and is unable to be calculated except at great expense. Estimates
g p
of the cost of a study range from several hundred thousand dollars to two or three times
that amount. The reliability of the study would be based on the amount and
consistency of testing, and the more tests performed, the more costly the study would
become. The point at which "enough" work has been done to provide reliable data has
been difficult to determine in all the studies performed in the landslide. A gross
stability study could be initiated by the City of by private property owners. Presently
there is no mechanism to spread the cost of a gross stability study to the area of
benefit.
The question of factor of safety for gross conditions (gross stability) versus factor of
safety for individual lots was discussed with each consultant. In eneral the agreed
g Y g
that the utilization of a 1.5 factor of safety as a benchmark for building was an arbitrary
number based on years of experience by the overall geotechnical community. There
i Y
was an indication that the consultants would be more comfortable with a factor of safety
less than 1.5 which was based on extensive testing and which they had confidence in,
than they would in a factor of safety of 1.5 that was based on minimal testing and
City Council Minutes
January 25, 1997
Page 6
therefore less reliable. The owner of an individual lot could not practically calculate a
factor of safety for the entire landslide area but could do so for his /her own lot. The
local factor of safety would deal only with soil conditions /landslides on individual lots
and the impacts of local grading to insure safety against local failure. The potential for
movement of the underlying landslide should not be the small property owner's
responsibility. The most reliable indicator of safety in the Zone II case is the fact that
the area has been stable for a long period of time. However, a factor of safety for each
individual lot should be calculated to reflect specific conditions relative to that lot. Dr.
Mann feels that an important condition of allowing development in Zone 11 is the
preparation and review of the individual lot Geology Report prior to issuance of
individual permits. It gives the City a "second chance" to insure development is
appropriate.
Since the factor of safety for the underlying landslide is not known, control of water and
grading is required. Gross stability of the Zone II area depends on control of grading
and continued dewatering.
Sewers/Drainage
The consultants agreed that controlling landscape irrigation and sewage was important.
Keeping water out is much more effective than attempting to remove it after it enters the
slide. Sewers are absolutely essential because they keep water out for which there are
no controls over where it enters. Dr. Mann felt that a sewage system was necessary
because sewage may work its way down in the earth and on the way down create
unpredictable problems. Keeping water from getting in, rather than trying to pump it
out, is the best solution.
In general, geologists were opposed to individual sewage systems, such as septic
tanks, unless there were no other options. Even by making borings and monitoring
wells no one can be sure of what happens to sewage, irrigation water, water from leaky
pools, etc when it enters the ground. Adding more homes, more lawns and more
surface runoff would largely be handled by evapotranspiration and positive drainage.
Whatever is done should result in improving the situation rather than making it worse.
Although high ground water could cause Zone 11 to move again, under the conditions
imposed by the Peer Review Consultants for future development, they believe that is
highly unlikely.
Dr. Ehlig then summarized some technical aspects of this factor of safety in each of the
zones and the characteristics of the geology for each zone. Controlling the ground
water was stressed as being most important to controlling the stability of the area and
thus improving the factor of safety.
City Council Minutes
January 25, 1997
Page 7
Environmental Process
Director Evans introduced Randy Nichols Project Manager for Impact Sciences who
explained the difference between Initial Studies and how they determine whether there
would be significant impacts thus requiring an environmental impact report. He said
p p
that there was sufficient information in the initial studies to conclude that the projects
would not have significant impacts provided the mitigation measures were
implemented. He explained that the process to prepare an EIR would take six to seven
months.
Director Evans then summarized the alternatives as listed in the staff report:
1. The City Council may direct staff to proceed with the preparation and circulation of a
mitigated negative declaration as recommended by the environmental consultant and
direct the City Attorney to prepare appropriate code amendments which would allow
development in Zone II.
2. The City Council may direct staff to prepare a full EIR for the Zone II development
proposal and hold in abeyance any action by the City Attorney ntil an EIR is a roved
Y pp
and certified.
3. The City Council may direct staff to request proposals for additional geotechnical
studies to be performed in the Zone II area, including an investigation of gross stability
and calculation of factors of safety for various groundwater conditions. The costs of
these studies could possibly be funded by the City and recouped in the form of permit
fees for future development if development is ultimately approved.
4. The City Council may direct staff to cease any action on the Zone II development
proposal.
Council then proceed to make certain inquiries of the Public Works Director and Dr.
Ehlig which focused on the following: the stability of a local slope stability versus the
region and the information required to make any decision with regard to development;
what was involved in determining the stability of a single lot and whether it would be
necessary to take any core samples to determine if there was a base slide existed in
that lot; the process whereby the City, Council and public have confidence to ensure
that there is a factor of safety 1.5.
The following residents then addressed the Council:
Robert McJones, 1 Limetree Lane, inquired about the availability of the results of well
City Council Minutes
January 25, 1997
Page 3
tests that were conducted as a result of the Horan settlement. He felt that these wells
would have provided important results that would be important to the matter of stability.
Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine, stated her disagreement with the testimony of Dr. Ehlig
and the representative from Impact Sciences.
Jack Downhill, 20 Vanderlip Drive, said he has been following the activity of the
technical panel for eight or nine years now and that he appreciated this opportunity to
present the facts so that certain issues could be discussed. He stated that the Abalone
Cove Slide has been stopped since 1980 due largely to the dewatering efforts of
ACLAD, that 90% of the water comes from above the slide area, and that dewatering
would probably have to to be a continuing effort. (Mr. Downhill's prepared statement is
on file with the City Clerk's Office.)
Cathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills, urged the Council to accept Option 4
of the staff report. She felt there was not adequate information to make any decisions
and that the City should not pay to get all of that information. It was her position that if
a property owner bought property in the landslide area for speculation purposes that
they not be allowed to build. Only when the appropriate safety factor of 1.5 is proven
then could building be considered. She also questioned the adequacy of
indemnification for the City. She urged that the Council visit homes that are now
experiencing movement and have developed cracks in the foundations and walls.
Mike Agahee, 1917 Via Tampa, Lomita, owner of one piece of property in Zone II, said
he would like to build in that area and that building would help reduce groundwater in
the landslide.
Joan Wright, 1 Fruit Tree, presented pictures of the area which she felt were moving
and having a lot of problems. she said that there was damage on the roads and in a lot
of places. she was opposed to consideration of development.
Jeannette Mucha, 5538 Littlebow Road, President of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council
of Homeowner Associations, summarized the resolution adopted by the organization
requesting that the safety of property and homes be absolutely protected in the
landslide moratorium exception is relaxed or removed in Zone II of the Abalone Cove
Landslide Area. (This resolution is on file with the City Clerk's Office. )
Al Edgerton, 59 Oceanaire Drive, said that the factor of safety was unknown, that there
were no facts nor data; that the lower the factor of safety, the higher the risk. He stated
that a landslide is a continuous process and that adding houses is a driving force. He
asked why the City was pursuing this and spending tax payers money on it.
City Council Minutes
January 25, 1997
Page 9
John Beringer, 3412 Seaglen Drive, questioned the statement that there was no
appreciable movement since 1989. He felt that there as photographic evidence to the
contrary. He suggested that the Council follow alternative No. 3 as listed in the staff
report.
Liz. Campbell, 29 Packet Road, said that the original Portuguese Bend landslide started
because of the installation of Crenshaw Boulevard in an area close to Zone 2. She felt
that the concern of people was that if any area was eased or an exception made that it
would snowball and there would be considerable problems later on. She said that
nothing has changed to remove the moratorium.
Bill Griffin, 5 Ginger�Root Lane, made a series of comments and rebuttals to certain
statements: questioned the statement that the slide has not moved for some time, that
the water table on his property was now higher, that less than 1.5 safety factor was
foolish, that effluent was continuing to drain in from Rolling Hills, and requested that the
City give him indemnification if development was done. He also questioned the make-
up of the membership on the Peer Review Group.
Robert Halderman, 88 Narcissa Drive, cited six areas of concerns about development
in Zone II and submitted a written statement listing those concerns. (Mr. Halderman's
statement is on file with the City Clerk's Office. )
Jesus Gutierrez, owner of a lot in Zone II, said he enjoys his property very much and
has fruit trees growing on it. He said that there has been some development in the
area already in that new foundations have been built for some homes.
Jack Monks, 28757 Crestridge Rd., owner of a lot in Zone II, said he bought the land
there because he wanted to live there, he feels it is a particularly beautiful area, that he
is willing to take a gamble but also felt that Zone II was not a gamble. If guidelines are
followed he is willing to sign indemnification and build under exiting codes. He said
that he felt some people did not went others moving into the area and felt that the facts
supported building in Zone 2.
Don Fraser, 26 Peppertree, questioned the rush to build in the area. He felt that some
projects that were supposed to help didn't. He questioned if the work done to remedy
the slide conditions on Palos Verdes Drive South would be effective. He questioned
some predictions such as repayment of the loan to the County. He said that so many
predictions were total failures and questioned why there was a rush to do something in
the areas. 0
Chris Haber, 11 Plumtree, spoke in favor of proceeding cautiously and complimented
City Council Minutes
January 25, 1997
Page 10
the Council on the projects done so far. He said they have done outstanding job so
far. The last thing that he wants to do is jeopardize anybody in the community and
cause major financial crises and that he understands that homes are their primary
investments. He _stated that Mr. Ehlig has put years of his time into this project and it
appears that when people agree with what he is doing they say he is doing an
outstanding job; when they disagree, then he does not know what he is doing. He
said that he pours concrete for a living and has installed it on commercial and
residential jobs and that concrete cracks for many reasons.
Dave Ruth, 40 Cinnamon Lane, said he moved to the Portuguese Bend area 26 years
ago; that he has access to information generated by GPS and the movement goes from
zero to 1/2 inch a year. He has had the opportunity to listen to a lot of experts and from
individuals who lived on the Peninsula and some that do not live on the Peninsula. He
said that most of the cracks occur because of expansive soil. He stated his
appreciation for the efforts the Council has put into this matter.
Janine Batchelder, 6546 Eddinghill, urged the Council not to do anything.
Council questions focused on the following: why there was no mention of shoreline
work in the six projects identified by the Horan litigants; if there was enough money to
do shoreline protection work and if it is something that really has to be dealt with to
establish stability in the landslide; and, how obligated the City is to fulfill some of these
requirements of the Horan settlement.
Dr. Ehlig stated that with regard to shoreline work this is something that would improve
stability in the beach area and that perhaps it could wait ten to twenty years, but
ultimately it should be scheduled.
Additional Council comments focused on the following: what studies have been done
on zone 2 to aid in making a decision on this area; what can be observed from borings
and how deep those borings would have to be; if it was necessary to allow
development to get the funds to allow development; that it would take six to nine
months to install the sewer system and that this might improve the level of the
groundwater; the timeline for the drainage of the Klondike Canyon area; how the status
of the County negotiations would affect the funding for doing these projects; the liability
faced by the City in the event development is allowed even if there was a 1.5 safety
factor determined for the area; what happens in the event nothing is done to abate the
landslide then how liable would the City be; concern for how people who presently
have homes in the area might be able to improve them; and, if the City should look at
each request for improvement on a case by case basis to see what can be allowed on
people's property.
City Council Minutes
January 25, 1997
Page 11
It was the consensus that another meeting should be scheduled to discuss the
installation of the sewers upon completion of the negotiations with the County.
Council requested that staff prepare a report listing policies in place, the mitigation
measures already taken, what projects have been completed, a timeline for proposed
projects, and the amount and source of funding for these projects.
Bill Ruth, 4 Thyme Place, inquired if the L. A. County Flood Control would be willing to
fund a flood control project for Altamira Canyon.
George Wentz, Charles Abbott Associates, responded that such a request was already
made of the County and that they had refused funding.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 a.m. to Tuesday, January 28 at
7:00 p.m.. Motion made by Councilman Byrd.
Attest:
11,11V&
City Clerk
2597.ccm
Ma�&
City Council Minutes
January 25, 1997
Page 12