Loading...
16 - C.C. Staff Report dated April 17, 2012CC Staff Report (April 17, 2012) ATTACHMENT - 103 CrTYOF �L. .�WCHO PALOS MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CI UN IL MEMBERS FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY LOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: APRIL 17, 2012 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, (CASE NO. 2010-00025) FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CHAPARRAL LANE (Supports 2012 City Council Goal — City Trail Systems Enhancement) REVIEWED: CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER Project Manager: So Kim, Associate Planner' RECOMMENDATION Continue the public hearing on the proposed application package to June 5, 2012, to allow the applicant an opportunity to address geotechnical issues raised by the City Geologist related to the project's proposed septic system. DISCUSSION This matter involves a property owner's request for the relocation of a land use and zoning boundary line and construction of a new home on a vacant lot located at 10 Chaparral Lane. The application package was presented to the Planning Commission on February 28, 2012. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application. Because a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is involved, the Planning Commission's role is solely advisory and the decision on the application must be rendered by the City Council. Thus, a public notice informing the public of the Council's consideration of this item on April 17th was duly published. In preparing the City Council ATTACHMENT - 104 Staff Report for the item, an issue was raised by Staff in response to information provided by the applicant to the Planning Commission related to a proposed septic system for the new residence. Staff discussed the issue with the City Geologist, who noted that additional information about the proposed septic system is needed at this time. As such, Staff is recommending that the City Council continue the public hearing to June 5, 2012. The applicant is in agreement with Staff's continuance recommendation. Interested parties have also been notified of this continuance recommendation. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Since the February 28, 2012 Planning Commission hearing on this item, Staff received correspondence from three separate neighbors related to the proposed project. These letters and emails will be attached to and/or addressed in the June 5th Staff Report. ATTACHMENT - 105 Page 1 of 2 So Kim From: Damon Swank [damon.swank1685@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:45 PM To: So Kim Subject: Damage to Chaparral Lane Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Chaparral Lane is private property: a common driveway. It is not reinforced and only lightly surfaced. This driveway is not intended to accommodate heavy truck traffic. The applicant represented to the Planning Commission at the hearing that large and heavy vehicles, such as those big garbage trucks, use the driveway without difficulty. This assertion was, emphatically, not true. The commissioners refused to allow a rebuttal. In fact, the lane is serviced by little "pup trucks," which are pickup - sized vehicles equipped for collecting small quantities of refuse. The proposed project contemplates a huge amount of heavy -vehicle traffic. As an example, perhaps 300 full-sized dump truck trips (in & out) may be required: 1,500 cubic yards @ ten cubic yards per truck. Add bulldozers, earth movers, cement trucks, masonry, lumber, and steel haulers. The shoulder of the lane drops off severely in places. Because the lane is narrow, trucks will likely drive close to the northern shoulder, and could cause the shoulder to fail. The planning commissioners acknowledged probable damage to the thin pavement. The applicant represented that he would repair any damage to the pavement. The City should require the applicant to post a substantial bond or otherwise guarantee immediate repair of any failure of the roadway. If the lane is not serviceable, not only will entrance and exit be compromised but there will be no fire, medical, or utilities available 4/10/2012 ATTACHMENT - 106 Page 2 of 2 Page 1 of 1 So Kim From: Damon Swank [damon.swank1685@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:46 PM To: So Kim Subject: #10 Chaparral: Trail Issues Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Problems with the City's Proposed Trail Plan 1) A plan does not create a trail. The trail must not only be designated, provisions must be made to make it useful to the citizens. 2) There is an existing easement: this is the western 10-15 feet of #7 Chaparral. The builder, Lowell Blau, was required to dedicate this easement as a condition of contructing #7 Chaparral. 3) The city's proposed trail lies in large part on the private property of #7 Chaparral, for which no easement has been granted. This is not proper. 4/10/2012 ATTACHMENT - 108 Page 1 of 1 k So Kim From: Damon Swank [damon.swank1685@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:45 PM To: So Kim Subject: #10 Chaparral: Property Line Issue Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red The applicant proposes to build primarily on the space occupied by the existing level pad at the terminus of Chaparral Lane. A significant portion of the existing level pad appears to be outside of the property lines of #10 Chaparral. The city should require the applicant to clearly demonstrate that the proposed project lies entirely within his property lines: this includes not only the structure but also retaining walls, gardens, outbuildings, and all other improvements. Please refer to Exhibit "G." 4/10/2012 ATTACHMENT - 109 Page 1 of 2 So Kim From: Damon Swank [damon.swank1685@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:46 PM To: So Kim Subject: View and Height Issues of #10 Chaparral, RP Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red The View from #7 Chaparral; No Justifications for Waiving Height Limits Our code protects and perpetuates views both near (in our case, the "Canyon View to the West)) and far (here, the "City View" to the North). The code notes that properties commonly have several views, which may be uninterrupted or segmented. One seated in our dining room enjoys both views. (Exh. "A") The proposed project, 8,000+ square feet, seeks a variance approaching twice the lawful height: from 16' to 26.' The project also intends to raise the existing grade level by, perhaps, six feet. If so, the effective height is 32.' The roof line of #10 will then be above the viewing level of #7: a fact confirmed by the framed skeletion' This height obliterates the canyon view of #7. (Exh. "B": pages 1, 2), (Exh. "C:" pages 1,2.) The Canyon View From #7 Has Been Important Over the Years 1) When we purchased #7, the view was described as a "panoramic of city lights, canyon, and some harbor." (Exh. "A") 2) When #10 was for sale in 2007, the view was described as "View: Canyon View, City Lights View, Hills View, M." (Exh. "D" p.2) 3) We have used the canyon view for holiday greeting cards, graduation photographs, and the like. (Exh. "E") 4) To preserve the view, I purchased #10 about 2005 from the Bankruptcy Trustee, but was overbid at the court hearing by a "Dealer in Distressed Properties." The buyer was specifically advised 4/10/2012 ATTACHMENT - 110 Page 2 of 2 r by the judge in open court that the property might.not be developable. No Justification for Height Variance Nothing special or unique about #10 Chaparral justifies almost doubling the statutory height limit of 16.' To the contrary, the proposed residence will not only eviscerate the Canyon View of #7, but will be higher than the viewing level of #7 Chaparral and be thousands of square feet larger than others on Chaparral Lane. Granting a variance in these circumstances effectively nullifies the regulations established by code. If #10 can obtain such a variance, denying a variance for any future project in the city will be impossible to justify. 4/10/2012 ATTACHMENT - 111 sits at the cul-de-sac of a private road. The view is Danoramic of citv li hts canyon, and some harbor. It is one of the most private settings you could wish for. Security system with camera, open beamed ceiling, saltillo tile,3 ba conies, spacious master suite with fireplace and sitting area, sumptuous master bath with sauna, formal dining room, sunken living room with conversation pit, family room with huge bar area, wine cellar, recreation room, country kitchen with center island and bar. Walled courtyard with pool, spa & shower. 3 car garage. Situated on 2/3 acre of land. 4—MON—Raft; FI-VioK, For, PORCHI For Private Showing Contact: (31 377-9551 ftmw Bum RE/MAX Hall Of Fame WMKPalos Verdes Realty (31 0) 541-5224 ext. 227 Each office independently owned & operated All information deemed reliable but not guaranteed Distinctive Hor"A TQ1f37J C rM[�AtW —'112 ATTACHMENT -]1J \��/����� ATTACHMENT -]1J �� d ATTACHMEN - 4 f f S �` ATTACHMENT - 116 Manhattan Beach Real Esti' Mermosa Beach Real Estate, Los Ang� " County Real Est... Page 1 of 2 Previous Property Back to Results Next Property 2 Acre Residential Verdes Print LJ Email This Property Mortgage AA Community Info ATTACHMENT - 117 httn•//www (-.alifnrninhnmPcalac infn/T.ictNnw/PrnnPrty acnx7PrnnertvTT)=1 118257 4/R/')007 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 $950,000 10 r"7 r Property Type: Land 7 JE NIS Square Feet: Company: Direct: 88430 RS2/OH The Duran Reed FirmBroker: Clara Duran Reed (310) 519-7670Email: Click Here LCOZoning: iff u) Broker: The Duran Reed Firm Broker Phone: (310) 519-7670 Print LJ Email This Property Mortgage AA Community Info ATTACHMENT - 117 httn•//www (-.alifnrninhnmPcalac infn/T.ictNnw/PrnnPrty acnx7PrnnertvTT)=1 118257 4/R/')007 Manhattan Beach Real Esf Hermosa Beach Real Estate, Los AA� "-''s County Real Est... Page 2 of 2 Schedule Showing [ Request More Info Fantastic opportunity to build your dream home(s) at a very reasonable price. Enough space for horses and maybe a second home? (check with City (310) 544- 5228). This home site is over three times the size of some neighboring lots. Over two (2) acres of tranquil, unobstructed views of the city and snow covered mountains. Located at the end of a cul de sac. Private location where all you hear are the sounds of nature. In the evening enjoy the glittering views of the city. Area is immediately adjacent to the George F. Canyon Open Space area. Price includes geological, soil and engineering reports. The information presented here is deemed reliable, though not guaranteed. Previous Property Back to Results Next Property Web Site Design and Hosting Provided By: Advanced Access © 1998-2006 ATTACHMENT - 118 httn-//www_califnmiahnmeealec infn/T.ictNnw/Prnnerty acnY9PrnnertvTT)=1 1IR957 4/R/?()()7 View: Canyon Finance: Cash > View, City > City View > Horses Lights View, Hills View ___M > Mountain View versized Lot Wooded Lot The information presented here is deemed reliable, though not guaranteed. Previous Property Back to Results Next Property Web Site Design and Hosting Provided By: Advanced Access © 1998-2006 ATTACHMENT - 118 httn-//www_califnmiahnmeealec infn/T.ictNnw/Prnnerty acnY9PrnnertvTT)=1 1IR957 4/R/?()()7 neCEIVEID APR 10 2012 SIX CHAPARRAL LANE, RANCHO PALOS VERDES CALIFOR p P� PHONE, (310) 544-0001 FAX_ (310) 544-7900 EMAIL. TH JOEC3L1vERE@�1N4, , Ei1R April 10, 2012 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30910 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 City Council Members Anthony Misetich, Brian Campbell, Susan Brooks, Jerry Duhovic, Jim Knight I respectfully submit the accompanied photos that clearly give an overview of the proposed site location for construction on # 10OChaparral Lane RPV and surrounding properties that will be affected by the council's decision to approve the applicants request to build at # 10 Chaparral Ln. You will also find in your package herewith a copy of my letter to Palos Verdes Hills ,Masters Qualified ,Dick Brown PG certified Engineering geologist. The R.P.V.city geologists Jim Lancaster has determined that the applicant acquire permission from the owner at #8 Chaparral to construct a 60 ft long retaining wail at the foot of # 8 Chaparral to stabilize the historical landslide slope. Failing to stabilize #8 would deem the project at # 10 unbuildable. I have not personally seen permission from #8 owner but cannot believe that just because he has supposed permission no geological data is required for # 8. There is history of landslide activity on the #8 property in your file. The owner of both # 8 and #10 were told by the Judge at the auction when they purchased the properties that the purchaser of # 10 and # 8 should be aware that both properties most probably would be unbuildable. ATTACHMENT - 122 Approval for grading and construction on #10 Chaparral Lane and the retaining wall below #8 Chaparral Lane should be denied by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes until adequate and appropriate subsurface investigations are undertaken and reported on by qualified and certified engineering geologists. The city geologist should observe the materials within the excavations during the investigation and grading phases, and review the field logs during the excavations. Please see US Geologic Services Geologic inspection for Lot 231 Tract 22946 consultants mapped several active landslides on #8 and #10 Chaparral Lane and referenced reported ancient landslides from previous published geologic maps. As you can see from the photos provided the homes at the very top of # 8 Chaparral are at the cliff edge of Bronco Ln.( at the 45 degree slopeof # 8) thereby making any movement from sliding a life threatening hazard . This also affects the danger to adjoining Bronco properties and # 6 Chaparral # 7 Chaparral and the entire Chaparral surrounding area. I ask that you deny the applicants request for the reasons specified and I thank you for your consideration Joe ATTACHMENT - 123 RECEIVED F APR 10 2012 SIX CHAPARRAL LANE. RANCHO PALOS VERDES, ,I.IF IA%u'$i ?JRMEdT PHONE: (310) 544-0001 Fax; (31c) 544-7900 EMAIL: THEJO OLIVER WO 03/13/2012 Dick Brown P.G. Certified Engineering Geologist 296 College Park Drive Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Dick, It was a pleasure to speak with you yesterday regarding the concerns of development of the property at #10 Chaparral Lane in Rancho Palos Verdes. I was impressed with your Masters qualifications, and particularly as Chief Editor of the publication of your book,"Geology and Paleontology of Palos Verdes Hills ". I will obtain a copy for my library. If you recall, I live at 6 Chaparral Lane, across the street from Damon Swank at # 7, who is adjacent to the proposed development. I have enclosed the geological details of #8 adjacent to my property (#6) for your review. As you can see, it specifies that there is a high probability of slippage due to ancient landslide history pointed out in the geological of #8 Chaparral. This brings up the question of the slippage effects of grading for a retaining wall on #8 Chaparral, (no geological reports obtained for this work?) as required for building at #10. When I purchased my house (#6), my geologist Sid Nesbit, CEG., recommended to me to not even consider the purchase of #8 property when I considered buying it, because of the liability probability of slippage on the #8 lot. His comment was that he would not take it if you ATTACHMENT - 124 gave it to him. Ownership of the #8 lot would have tremendous liability. Irrigation alone would be dangerous. This brings up the question, who is responsible for failing to stabilize the slope? The city? The developer? The property owner? The planning commission has determined that if the developer of #10 got the permission from the owner at # 8 to construct a retaining wall, at the toe of # 8, it would mitigate geologic issues of concern of the city geologist. (There has been no mention of the stability of that property as drilling for that determination has not been done). The applicant says he has permission. However there was no geology report required on # 8 to construct any retaining wall or any other provision. Just because he got permission from the owner it doesn't change the history of the # 8 property probability to shift. The residents at the top of #8 at Bronco lane are sitting on the cliff edge of the slope at #8 property that was determined unbuildable according to the reports provided. Jim Lancaster, the city geologist, has determined that should # 8 not meet the geological requirements to construct a retaining wall to protect the applicant at #10 Chaparral the property development would be deemed not feasible. Approval for grading and construction on #10 Chaparral Lane and the retaining wall below #8 should be denied by RPV until adequate and appropriate subsurface investigations are undertaken and reported by a qualified, certified, independent engineering geologist. With the proposed 60 foot long retaining wall at #8 the only space available for a driveway would parallel my driveway, making my property at #6 susceptible to stability issues. - Respeojlly, �l Tetreault — Chair Dave Emenhiser —Vice Chair Bill Gerstner n Lean Jeffrey Lewis Robert Nelson David Tomblin ATTACHMENT - 125 F d• STEPHEN E. JACOBS, C.E.G. 1307 Engineering Geologist 2871 Sanford Lane, Carlsbad, CA 92010-6553 Phone & Fax (760) 434-8503 Cell (760) 458-5574 Email steoheneiacobs30l9@gmail.com April 10, 2012 Mr. Damon Swank and Mr. Joe Oliveri No. 6 & No. 7 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 92075 Project No. 12002 Subject: Third Party Geological Review No. 8 and No. 10 Chaparral Lane Vacant Parcels 26 and 32 of Lot 21, Tract 22946 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Mr. Swank and Mr. Oliveri: As requested by Mr. Oliveri on April 4 at the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, we have prepared a list of comments, questions, and concerns regarding geologic issues on No. 8 and No. 10 Chaparral Lane. This letter may be presented to members of the city council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the city geologist and others concerned at the April 17, 2012 meeting. SWANK AND OLIVERI MEETING QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS, PREPARATION FOR THE APRIL 17, 2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Attendees of the RVP Meeting on April 4, 2012: Mr. Damon Swank, homeowner at No. 7 Chaparral Lane Mr. Joe Oliveri, homeowner at No. 6 Chaparral Lane Mr. James Lancaster, CEG, consultant -engineering geologist for the City of RPV Mr. Dick Brown, CEG, independent consultant engineering geologist ATTACHMENT - 130 4/10/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Project No. 12002 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Mr. Steve Jacobs, CEG, independent consultant engineering geologist Mr. Joel Rojas, director of planning for City of RPV Ms. So Kim, Planner for City of RPV Project Consultant for No. 10 Chaparral Lane (not at meeting): Professional Engineers Consulting Inc. (PEC) Comments: • The city geologist, Mr. James Lancaster, stated that it is his duty to evaluate the geologic data as presented by the geotechnical/geologic consultant preparing the on-site investigation report. He said it is not his job to question the geologic validity of that data. We question this viewpoint in that we believe the city geologist should endeavor to protect public safety by asking the geotechnical/geologic consultant the appropriate questions that pertain to public safety issues, such as those raised in the conclusions and recommendation of our report dated April 4, 2012, and the following: • The city geologist reviewing the consultant's investigation report should verify to his satisfaction that there is adequate geologic data to characterize the stability of the site (specifically slope stability and construction feasibility). The city geologist, Mr. Lancaster, stated if we want to appeal the review process of the geologic reports, then we can submit questions to the geologic appeals board to have them review the geologic data. • It is our understanding that a caisson retaining wall is to be placed parallel to Chaparral Lane and partly across Nos. 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane has been approved conceptually only, not approved yet for construction. • Questions and Concerns for City Council Meeting • Are the number and location of borings/test pits sufficient enough to characterize the subsurface geology on the properties and proposed construction site on No. 10 Chaparral Lane? • We believe that several landslides exist on No. 10 Chaparral Lane, and were not mapped by the consultant due to inadequate borings and 2 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT - 131 4/10/2012 Project No. 12002 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA misidentification of geologic materials. The landslides may reach a significantly greater depth than that reported in their limited number of borings and test pits. If the maximum depth of landslide deposits (believe to possibly extend below the undocumented fill on the pad), is still unknown, then why has the project been approved without knowing the depth to bedrock (Catalina Schist) in this area, and how deep the caissons need to penetrate? Were the previous borings located in an area that could obtain the maximum depth of landslide deposits? • Has the engineering geologist of the consulting firm Professional Engineers Consulting Inc. (PEC) prepared an adequate geologic cross section down the slope to adequately characterize the maximum landslide depth? • Has the geotechnical engineer (PEC) performed an adequate slope stability analysis (seismic and static) based on an adequate geologic cross section? An investigation of No. 10 Chaparral Lane was performed by Environmental Geological Laboratories (EGL), and several boring logs from this previous investigation were used in the geotechnical/geological report by Professional Engineers Consulting Inc. (PEC). This previous investigation apparently may not have completed and no geological report filed at RPV city hall, and no review of it was known to have been performed. Where did PEC obtain the boring logs that were used in their report, dated November 4, 2007? • Conceptual planning approval was made for the currrent project, but no geologic approval for grading, construction and building from a public safety standpoint has been made. Will our geologic data presented at the April 4th meeting and the upcoming city council meeting be considered or ignored as part of the final geologic approval to develop the property? • Has there been a geologic approval for construction of the caisson retaining wall across No.8 and part of No. 10 Chaparral? The consultant, PEC, did not perform any borings on No. 8 Chaparral Lane to determine the depth of the known landslide in order to prepare a proper geologic cross section for an adequate slope stability analysis for design of the 60 - foot long caisson retaining wall. We believe this is a gross error of professional engineering responsibility. Why has conceptual approval been granted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes without any subsurface investigation to determine the base of the previously mapped landslide? • Will the caisson retaining wall, relocated farther up the slope on No. 8. Chaparral Lane, where its height will have to be increased considerably, be required to have an addendum slope stability analysis? We think that 3 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT - 132 4/10/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Project No. 12002 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA it should and be based on at least two new borings to determine the base of the known landslide. Ms. So Kim, at the April 4th meeting remarked. "We have already approved the project conceptually." What does this mean? For example, is the next step automatic with regard to issuing a grading permit in light of the geologic data we provided at that meeting regarding the landslide deposits exposed in the dozer cut in 2007? We believe more geologic data is needed to adequately determine the thickness and base of the landslides and to properly characterize the materials, shown on PEC's geologic map as landslide instead of colluvium. What is the basis for reviewing the lithologic designations and descriptions of materials logged in the excavations and presented in the investigation report by PEC? By interpreting the surficial deposit a landslide instead of merely colluvium still begs the question: How deep does this material (we believe landslide deposits) go? If city doesn't know the depth of unsuitable material, then how can they approve construction on the project when we don't know how deep into bedrock Catalina Schist to go to put in the caissons? • The proposed 60 -foot long caisson retaining wall along the north side of No. 8 Chaparral Lane may deny access to possible future construction on that lot which is currently vacant. Does the owner of that lot realize the implications of a massive retaining wall across much of the north side of his lot may have on potential future lot development? The excavation for the proposed retaining wall will undercut the known landslide on No. 8 Chaparral Lane, and possibly cause the landslide to fail. • Failure of the landslide on No. 8 Chaparral Lane could block the driveway and damage the structure on No. 6 and damage and could undermine the structure on No. 7 Chaparral Lane. Should the landslide fail into Chaparral Lane, it could deny access to the residences near the end of Chaparral Lane by the fire department and other emergency vehicles. • Has the consultant, PEC, discussed how the proposed caisson retaining wall is to be constructed to avoid failure of the landslide? What temporary measures will be used to support the excavation prior to construction of the caisson retaining wall? • In our professional opinion, approval for grading and construction on No. 10 Chaparral Lane and the caisson retaining wall below No. 8 Chaparral Lane should be denied by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes until adequate and appropriate subsurface investigations are undertaken and reported on by qualified and certified engineering geologists. 4 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT - 133 4/10/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Project No. 12002 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA • We strongly recommend that the Rancho Palos Verdes city geologist observe the materials within the excavations on No. 8 and No. 10 Chaparral Lane during the future investigation and grading phases, and review the field logs during the excavations. Thank you for the opportunity to be of continued service to you. If you have any questions, please call undersigned. Very truly yours, Arthur R. (Dick) Brown, CEG Stephen E. (Steve) Jacobs, CEG 5 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT - 134 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, C.E.G. 1307 Engineering Geologist 2871 Sanford Lane, Carlsbad, CA 92010-6553 Phone & Fax (760) 434-8503 Cell (760) 458-5574 Email stepheneiacobs30l9@qmaii.com April 4, 2012 Mr. Damon Swank and Mr. Joe Oliveri No. 6 & No. 7 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 92075 Project No. 12002 Subject: Third Party Geological Review No. 8 and No. 10 Chaparral Lane Vacant Parcels 26 and 32 of Lot 21, Tract 22946 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Mr. Swank and Mr. Oliveri: As requested by you both, we have performed an evaluation of the available geologic data related to the gross stability of the slopes on No. 8 and No. 10 Chaparral Lane. This letter is to be presented to Mr. Joel Rojas, community development director, and Mr. James M. Lancaster, city geologist, both in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Previous investigations on or near the subject properties have been undertaken by Keith Ehlert, Lockwood -Singh & Associates, URS, Zeiser Kling, American Geotechnical, Baseline Geotechnical, Professional Engineers Consulting, Stone Geotechnical Services, H.C. Nikola Associates, and U.S. Geologic Services. A new 6,000 -square -foot residence is proposed for construction on the previously graded (undocumented fill) pad portion of No. 10 Chaparral Lane. The city reviewed the consultant's preliminary geotechnical investigation report and has tentatively approved construction of the residence. We interpret that a series of landslides underlie the subject properties at No. 8 and No. 10 Chaparral Lane. As illustrated on four photographs (presented at the end of this report), an approximately 10 -foot high dozer cut above the graded pad on No. 10 Chaparral Lane exposed at least three landslide deposits and associated paleosols. These photographs were taken by Mr. Damon Swank on November 15, 2007 during the AEG annual convention field trip. Dr. Roy Shlemon, shown on the first photograph, interpreted the exposure. ATTACHMENT - 135 { 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA The slope above the road from No. 8 Chaparral Lane and No. 10 Chaparral Lane was excavated during 2007 and covered with geofabic and reportedly planted with ice plant. Reports, if any, of repair of the dozer cuts in the slope above the graded pad on No. 10 Chaparral Lane were not available to us. A 64 -foot long retaining wall with caissons, on the south side of Chaparral Lane, was proposed to support the landslide on No. 8 Chaparral Lane and the eastern part of No. 10 Chaparral Lane. This wall was to be constructed prior to construction of the proposed residence on No. 10 Chaparral Lane. Our third -party evaluation included reviewing the following literature: PUBLISHED REFERENCES AND PHOTOGRAPHS [Quotations from references and our comments bold italicized] 1. 1946: Woodring, W.P. Bramlette, M.N. and Kew, W.S.W., Geology and Paleontology of the Palos Verdes Hills, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 207, 145 p., Plate 1, geologic map, scale 1:24,000. 2. February 28, 1963: U.S. Geological Survey, digital vertical aerial photographs, black & white, stereo, Frame Nos. 2-29 and 2-30, scale 1:30,000. 3. October 30, 1972: U.S. Geological Survey, digital vertical aerial photographs, black & white, stereo, Frame Nos. 3-160 and 3-161, scale 1:30,000. 4. 1976: Cleveland, G.B., Geology of the Northeast Part of the Palos Verdes Hills, Los Angeles County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) Map Sheet 27, Plate 2, map scale 1:12,000. 5. 1999: California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), Official Seismic Hazard Zones map of the Torrance Quadrangle: scale 1:24,000. 6. 1999: Dibblee, T.W. Jr., Geologic Map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Vicinity: Redondo Beach, Torrance, and San Pedro Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #DF -70, scale 1:24,000. 7. March 16, 2006: Google Earth color aerial photograph, US Geological Survey, www.historicmapdvds.com. 2 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT - 136 S 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 8. April 25, 2007: Google Earth color aerial photograph, Digital Globe,www.historicmapdvds.com. 9. May, 2007: California Geological Survey (CGS), Landslide Inventory Map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, Los Angeles County, California, by Wayne D. Hayden, Landslide Inventory Map Series, scale 1:24,000. 10. July 31, 2007: Google Earth color aerial photograph, www.historicmapdvds.com [pre -dates slope grading on #10 Chaparral Lane]. 11. September 19, 2007, City of Rancho Palos Verdes GIS system, Map Output containing aerial photographs of #10 Chaparral Lane. 12. November 15, 2007, Four ground photographs showing road cuts into slope above graded pad and one photographs showing geofabric covered slope on No. 10 Chaparral Lane. Photos provided by Damon Swank [Ancient landslide deposits and paleosols exposed in the cuts are considered Holocene age]. 13. January 9, 2008: Google Earth color aerial photograph, LAR -IAC image, www.historicmapdvds.com [slope above pad on eastern part of #10 Chaparral Lane excavated and vegetation removed]. 14. November 15, 2009: Google Earth color aerial photograph, www.historicmapdvds.com. 15. May 25, 2009: Google Earth color aerial photograph, USDA Farm Service Agency, www.historicmapdvds.com 16. March 8, 2011: Google Earth color aerial photograph, www.historicmapdvds.com CONSULTANT REPORTS AND REVIEWS [Quotations from references and our comments bold italicized] October 28, 1960: Stone Geological Service, Inc., report, visual geologic examinations, Tract 22946, Lots 1, 2, 3, of Block A, of Lot 1; Lots 1,2, of Block B, of Lot 21; Lots 1,2,3, of Block C, of Lot 2; lots 19 and 20; Cayuse lane, Palos Verdes Hills (10 Lots), project no. 60-164 [The consultant states "The material underlying lots 1 and 2 of Block B of Lot21; and lots 1 and 2 of Block C of Lot 21, is not stable enough for home construction. The loose rills above these lots rest on unstable material. They present a hazard to these lots." (Consultant mapped loose rill and small landslide on Parcel 26 of Lot 21)]. STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT - 137 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 2. February 9, 1973: James R. Trotter, Supervising Civil Engineer I, Soils Engineering Section, County of Los Angeles, Review of Soils and Stability Problems, Two -Acre Portion, Western Lot 21, Tract 22946, Palos Verdes Peninsula ["The proposed residence location is below reported landslides on an existing rill pad believed to be substandard with respect to compaction and placement. The proposed guest house is located entirely on a mapped landslide reported to be active." "Considering the overall canyon slope section through the property, the stability of the foliated schist materials which underlie the landslides has not been calculated and is suspect. "]. 3. July 13, 1981: Lockwood -Singh & Associates, Recommendations on Design of Retaining Wall along Proposed Driveway Portion of Lot 21, Tract 22946, Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project Ref. 2360-12. 4. July 21, 1981: Lockwood -Singh & Associates, Additional Recommendations on Design of Retaining Wall along Proposed Driveway portion of Lot 21, Tract 22946, Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project Ref. 2360-12. 5. July 28, 1981: Lockwood -Singh & Associates, Site Stability, lot 21, Tract 22946, #7 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project Ref. 702-62. 6. August 27, 1981: County of Los Angeles, Geologic Review Sheet, #7 Chaparral Lane, Portion Lot 21, Tract 22496 pertaining to Report dated August 11, 1981 by Lockwood -Singh & Associates [unsuitable rill, stability analysis of slope required, major corrective work recommended to develop and stabilize the area of 4 lots west of site.] . 7. September 29,1981: Lockwood -Singh & Associates, Addendum II, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, dated August 11, 1981, Proposed Single -Family Residence, Portion of Lot 21, Tract 22496, Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project Ref. 2360-12. [Consultant performed a slope stability analysis] . 8. March 4,1982: Lockwood -Singh & Associates, Addendum III, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, dated August 11, 1981, Proposed Single -Family Residence, Portion of Lot 21, Tract 22496, Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project Ref. 2360-12. 9. March 15,1982: Lockwood -Singh & Associates, Addendum IV, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, dated August 11, 1981, Proposed Single -Family Residence, Portion of Lot 21, Tract 22496, Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project Ref. 2360-12. 4 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT - 138 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 10. September 5, 1985: Baseline Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Opinion Report, #6 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project No. 1446+085 [stated that April 11, 1981 report shows site is bounded to the west by a landslide, active and inactive]. 11. May 7,1990: American Geotechnical, Real Estate Review, No. 6 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, File No. 2665.02 [concluded that there was no evidence of slope instability. Subsurface investigation suggests the existence of a larger slide atop the two smaller slides west of No. 6 Chaparral Lane]. 12. July 26, 1990: A.G. Keene Associates, Third Party Review of Geologic Data Relative to No. 6 Chaparral, City of Rancho Palos Verdes. [Attached are boring logs from American Geotechnical, Lockwood -Singh & Associates, and James E. S/osson & Associates; report states that American Geotechnical had insufficient subsurface data on Lot 32 to conclude that landslide debris underlies No. 6 Chaparral. Lockwood and S/osson identified landslide debris on parcels 32 and 26 of Lot 21; Lots 29 and 30 and parcels 26 and 32 of Lot 21 and No. 6 Chaparral are not underlain by deep-seated landslide debris. Only shallow landsliding on lots 30 and 29. Deep-seated gouge -like material is interpreted as an ancient tectonic fault shear in the schist. Boring logs from American Geotechnical -Lots 26 and 32—dated 12/22189; Lockwood-Singh—dated 7/23-24/81, 11/19176, 5/17/73; James S/osson—dated 3/10-24/66]. 13. August 16, 1990: Keith W. Ehlert, Consulting Engineering Geologist, Geologic Opinion, #6 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, dated August 16, 1990, Project No. 2557-90 [Mr. Ehlert concluded no ancient landslide under property; talc layer in schist. AG exploring boring suggested that a deep-seated ancient landslide may project easterly underneath #6 Chaparral Lane. Geotechnical Investigation report by American Geotechnical was requested, but not obtained.]. 14. June 26, 1998: Keith W. Ehlert, Geologic Opinion, #7 Chaparral lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, dated June 26, 1998, Project No. 2129- 98 [Mr. Ehlert identified relatively large landslide located westerly of No. 7 Chaparral Lane. Portions of this landslide have been recently active]. 15. December 16, 2004: Antonia Delgado, Nettie Becker Escrow, Report #: PID 1206695, APN# 7568-019-026, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90275, Los Angeles, dated December 16, 2004 [subject property is located in an officially designated earthquake -induced landslide hazard zone]. 16. January 29, 2005: U.S. Geologic Services, Geologic inspection for Feasibility of Purchase of the approximately 2 -acre Vacant Parcel 26 of Lot 21, Tract 22946, Located adjacent to your residence at 7 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275, dated January 29, 2005, Project No. 05001 [Consultant mapped several active landslides on No.8 and No. 10 Chaparral Lane, and referenced reported ancient landslides from previous published geologic maps] 5 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT - 139 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 17. September 7, 2007, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Planning, Building & Code Enforcement, General Plan Amendment Request For Initiation 18. October 19, 2007: Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc., Site Visit Letter, 10 Chaparral, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated October 19, 2007, PN97082-1642 [Consultant reported surficial instabilities and erosion subjected to the slopes. No geologic observations of the vertical cuts on the dozer road are made in this report. See ground photos of vertical cut taken by Damon Swank on November 15, 2007 during the AEG convention field trip. Roy Shlemon observed the cut along with about 40 other engineering geologists. At least 3 landslides and associated pa/eoso/s were exposed in this cut.] 19. October 23, 2007: Jones & Stokes, Post -GIP operation Report for Lot #21 (Tract #22946), the 2 -acre Parcel Located at the Terminus of Chaparral lane in Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County, California (APN: 7568-019-026, dated October 23, 2007. [Report includes an aerial photo (Aerial Express, 2006) showing location of the dozer cut] 20. November 4, 2007: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc. (PEC), Geotechnical/Geologic Report, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project Number: FC0907 [The Test Pit Logs TP -4, TP -5, and TP -6, logged by T.H. of PEC describe "Native: Colluvium and Weathered Bedrock" as follows: "having 3- to 4 -foot long 'bedrock masses' underlying `Native Residual Soil,' and 'breccia of gray schist fragments with silt/clay matrix,' and 'talus/breccia of cobble -boulder schist fragments with silt matrix. "' We interpret these materials to be landslide deposits and overlying topsoil, respectively. Therefore, we consider the area mapped by PEC as colluvium to be landslide material. Test Pit Logs from EGL are missing.] 21. November 5, 2007: URS, Review of Jones & Stokes Report for the Chaparral lane Parcel APN 7568-019-026, URS Project No.27644296.08000, dated November 5, 2007. 22. November 20, 2007: Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc., Response to Site Visit Letter, 10 Chaparral, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated November 20, 2007, PN97082-1642 23. December 1, 2007: Professional Engineers Consultants, Inc., Response letter, 10 Chaparral, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated December 1, 2007 24. December 21, 2007: Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc., Response to Professional Engineers Consultants, Inc. letter dated December 1, 2007, 10 Chaparral. Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated December 21, 2007, PN97082-1642 6 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT - 140 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 25. January 29, 2008: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Daily Field Memo, Slope Inspection,10 Chaparral, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, dated January 29, 2008 26. April 2008: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Daily Field Memo, Slope Inspection,10 Chaparral, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, dated April 2008 27. September 12, 2008: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc, Respond to comments, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 28. December 18, 2009: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Response to geotechnical/geological comments dated October 2, 2008, PN 97082-1642 [Geologic cross section goes through proposed residence showing location of borings by PEC and EGL]. 29. July 27, 2010: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Respond to comments, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, Project Number: FC0907 [Geologic Cross -Section B -B' shows the slope above the proposed residence pad to be underlain by residual soil; Cross - Section A -A', which goes through the proposed residence, is missing from the report]. 30. December 29, 2010: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Soil Report Review by Zeiser Kling Consulting, Inc., 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, PN 97082-1642. 31. February 1, 2011: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Responses to review letter, January 27, 2010, PN 97082-1642, regarding the project at 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated February 1, 2011, Project No. FC0907 [Consultant performed Slope stability analysis for caisson wall to mitigate landslide] 32. February 17, 2011: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Geotechnical Report Response Checklist for 10 Chaparral, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, Portion of Lot 21, Tract 23946, dated February 17, 2011, PN97082-1642 33. August 1, 2011: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Environmental Checklist, Case No. ZON2010-00025 34. September 13, 2011: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Planning Commission Minutes, General plan Amendment, Zone change, Environmental Assessment, height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010-00025): 10 Chaparral Lane [staff would like the City Geologist to review the caisson location. Joe Olivers (6 Chaparral Lane) stated he has concerns about any building on this property (8 Chaparral 7 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT - 141 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Lane), noting that the property has been unstable. He explained that at one time he had the opportunity to buy the property, however his own geologist recommended against it. He stated that the history of the prior geology evaluation deemed the property unstable for construction. Mr. Olived also expressed concerns with development as there will then be limited access to the canyon by the fire department.] 35. September 13, 2011: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Planning Commission Staff Report, General Plan Amendment, Zone change, Environmental Assessment, height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010-00025): 10 Chaparral Lane [Report states " "as mentioned in the Environmental Assessment section and attached initial Study, the project site is not located in a geologically unstable area as defined in the City's General plan and State Landslide Map. However, according to the applicant's geology report, the southeastern portion of the lot experienced landsliding due to the extension of Chaparral Lane to the subject property many years ago. It should be noted that the landslide was primarily on the abutting vacant properly to the east, with a portion of the slide extending onto the subject property." "No other landslides have been identified on the subject property. The applicant's geology report for the proposed project received an in -concept approval from the City's Geologist with a requirement that caissons be used to stabilize the access on Chaparral, that existing fill dirt on the building pad be removed and replaced with compacted fill, that the proposed home and retaining wall use deepened footings into bedrock and use caissons in front of the home to stabilize the slopes beyond the building pad area. Therefore, the City approved geology report establishes sound geologic basis for relocating the existing boundary line to the top of the slope.] 36. September 15, 2011: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Review letter, proposed location of retaining wall and caissons [Site Plan shows location of proposed retaining wall with 10 caissons, 30" diameter, and 8' on -center]. 37. October 5, 2011: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Respond to comments, Landslide remediation, 8-10 Chaparral, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-1642 38. October, 27, 2011: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Geotechnical Report Response Checklist, PN 97082-1642. 39. February 28, 2012: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Planning Commission Agenda, Meeting notes 40. February 28, 2012: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Memorandum: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Height Variation and Grading Permit (Case No -00025); Project Address -- 10 Chaparral (Applicant/Landowner — Frank Colaruotolo) [Grading on 8 Chaparral Lane: The City Geologist conceptually approved the proposed project, provided that potential erosion and/or landslide deficiencies are mitigated with the construction of a caisson wall at the bottom of the slope adjacent to the lot's STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT - 142 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA access point. The proposed caisson wall is to be constructed across both 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane. Conclusion (P.C. Resolution No. 2012- Section 7: Approval of a Major Grading Permit to allow 2,000 cu. Yd (500 cu. yd. cut & 1,500 cu. Yd rill) of earth movement on 10 Chaparral Lane and 75 cu. yd. of grading on 8 Chaparral Lane is warranted because: The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. Mr. Joe Oliver! (6 Chaparral Lane) has expressed concerns with development on 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane.] 41. March 13, 2012, Joe Oliveri, letter regarding property at # 10 Chaparral Ln, Rancho Palos Verdes UNAVAILABLE CONSULTANT'S REPORTS [Our comments bold italicized] Listed below are consultant's reports that we would like to review: 1. September 2, 1960: Richard Merriam, Geologic Report for Lot 2¢ [sic], Tract 22946, dated September 2, 1960 2. May 1966: H.C. Nikola Associates, Inc., Soils Engineering investigation, Lots 21, 29, and 30, Tract 22496, Mustang Road and Bronco Drive, Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County, California, dated May, 1966 3. May 20, 1966: James E. Slosson and Associates, Geologic Investigation of Lots 21, 28, 29 and 30, Tract no. 22496, Los Angeles County, California, dated May 20, 1966. [We have boring logs only, part of B-1 log missing—landslides identified; slip surfaces identified at El. 689'0 766'y 745'; slickensided to/cose foliation surfaces to El. 7651 4. June 1968: Lockwood, Geologic Report for Lot 28, Tract 22946 and 22909, dated June 1968 5. September 14, 1973: Lockwood -Singh & Associates, Preliminary Geology and Soils Engineering investigation, Lots 29 and 30, and part of Lot 21 of Tract 22496, Bronco Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated September 14, 1973, Project Ref. 94-12 [We have boring -3 log only—no landslides identified; internally slickensided, ta/cose silty clay matrix at depth ranging from12 to 3611 6. April 28, 1977: Lockwood -Singh & Associates, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Lot 21, Tract 22496, Cayuse Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated April 28, 1977, Project Ref. 702-62. [We have Boring - 2 log only—no landslides identified in boring logs.] 7. August 11, 1981: Lockwood -Singh & Associates, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single -Family Residence, Portion of Lot 21, Tract 22496, Chaparral lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated 9 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT - 143 { 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA August 11, 1981, Project Ref. 2360-12. [We have boring logs only—no landslides identified; page 1 of 2 of B1 boring log is missing] 8. September 7,1981: Lockwood -Singh & Associates, Addendum, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, dated August 11, 1981, Proposed Single -Family Residence, Portion of Lot 21, Tract 22496, Chaparral lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated September 7, 1981, Project Ref. 2360-12. 9. April 23,1990: American Geotechnical, Inc., Geotechnical Report for Archint Associates, Lots 26 and 32, Tract 22946, dated April 23, 1990, File no. 2488.01 [have boring logs only—landslides identified]. 10. November 5, 2007: Professional Engineers Consultants, Inc., Daily Field Memo, 10 Chaparral, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated November 5, 2007. 11. October 2, 2008: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Review comments, PN 97082-1642. 12. February 1, 2011: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Geology Report for 10 Chaparral, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, Portion of Lot 21, Tract 22946, dated February 1, 2011, Project No. FC0907 [We have only excerpts of this report.]. CONCLUSIONS Previous geological and geotechnical investigation reports by several previous consultants and published geologic maps indicate the presence of landslides on the subject properties, or they describe the properties as unstable for home construction. Some examples of the consultants or reviewers who described these conditions include: Stone Geological Services (10/28/1960), James R. Trotter of County of Los Angeles (2/9/1973), Baseline Consultants (9/5/1985), and Keith W. Ehlert (6/26/1998). 2. EGL described materials in their boring logs as a gravelly and rocky sand in a silt/clay matrix. We interpret this material as landslide deposits. This material is overlain by a generally dark brown clayey to silty sand that we interpret as paleosols. Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc. described materials in their boring and test logs, and on their geologic map as colluvium, which we interpret as landslide deposits. 3. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission (9/13/11) states "...the project site (10 Chaparral Lane) is not located in a geologically 10 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT - 144 F 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA unstable area as defined in the City's General plan and State Landslide Map." This statement is false, because landslides are mapped on the subject property (see Landslide Inventory Map, CGS, 2007, near the end of this report) 4. The proposed 60 -foot long caisson retaining wall along the north side of No. 8 Chaparral Lane may deny access to possible future construction on this lot which is currently vacant. The excavation for the proposed retaining wall will undercut the mapped landslide on No. 8 Chaparral Lane, and possibly cause the landslide to fail. Failure of the landslide could block the driveway and damage the structures on No. 6 and damage the structure on No. 7 Chaparral Lane. Should the landslide fail into Chaparral Lane, it could deny access to the residences near the end of Chaparral Lane by the fire department and other emergency vehicles. RECOMMENDATIONS Approval for grading and construction on No. 10 Chaparral Lane and the retaining wall below No. 8 Chaparral Lane should be denied by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes until adequate and appropriate subsurface investigations are undertaken and reported on by qualified and certified engineering geologists. The city geologist should observe the materials within the excavations during the investigation and grading phases, and review the field logs during the excavations. Thank you for the opportunity to be of continued service to you. If you have any questions, please call undersigned. Very truly yours, Arthur R. (Dick) Brown, CEG Stephen E. (Steve) Jacobs, CEG 11 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT - 145 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA ATTACHMENT - 146 z :f Page 1 of 2 So Kim From: Joel Rojas Doelr@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 4:02 PM To: 'So Kim' Cc: 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Fund planning early in the process Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Attachments: Position page 1-0236.pdf; Position page 2-0237.pdf From: Carolynn Petru [mailto:carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:15 PM To: 'Joel Rojas' Subject: FW: Fund planning early in the process Hi Joel — FYI — in case you and your staff weren't copied on this. CP From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 10:44 AM To: clehr@rpv.com Cc: cc@rpv.com Subject: Fund planning early in the process Hello Carolyn, Here is the California Trails Association's Position Statement in relation to the City's Goals, Priorities and Budget process as it impacts trails preservation. 10 Chaparral is a perfect example because Staff did not discuss the trail issue with the property owner until after the application was declared complete and comments were received in response to the notice of the PC Public Hearing. would love to be a fly on the wall when you discuss this with Joel Rojas. So Kim clearly had not followed the directive in General Plan Amendment 22 which simply kicks the introduction to the RPV Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) up a notch. Not only is this "conceptual" trail connection described in the RPV General Plan, the existing trails are clear on the aerial photos. Mr. Rojas signed off on a Staff Recommendation which had not considered the existence of an important off-road circulation amenity. Category ll: Proposed trails and trail segments which cross undeveloped privately - owned land which is zoned as being developable. These trails and trail segments should be implemented when the respective parcels of land are developed. At the beginning, this is a neighborly request for cooperation with the "big picture". 4/10/2012 ATTACHMENT - 150 Page 2 of 2 Bring it up later, as in this case, it becomes a demand and an onerous burden on the property owner's wallet. I keep asking... What has the City got in the way of errors and omissions insurance? The new Council's goals mention "lessons learned". Well, if we cannot afford to fix previous screw -ups, how about you find a way to get the restoration of the trail across San Ramon Canyon included with the design and funding for the new storm drain? An off-road connection between the switchbacks and Friendship Park is somewhere between a "want" and a "need". The trail will absolutely, positively, never be seen again after the bulldozers go home. This will require a chat with Tom Odom. Both Planning and Public Works (not Director people) tell me "it is was not in the budget" when I inquire after the process has gone too far. Is there any hope for implementing the General Plan as it is? ...S 4/10/2012 ATTACHMENT - 151 RE: Implementation of trail presr 'Ation opportunities P of 2 CTA - 114,101 vades 000W 10 LIMETREE LANE RANCHO PALO$ VERDES CA 90275-5909 Position Statement Direct questions to the above or March 20, 2012 Sunshine 310 377-8761 Practically from day one after incorporation, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has had a problem with traits preservation. Various solutions have been considered including the trails oriented Goals in the Transportation Element in the General Plan and the adoption of a Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP). Historic trails were still being lost. On 11106/1.991 the RPV City Council adopted Amendment 22 to the General Plan in an effort to make it more clear which Department was responsible for preserving and making an effort to improve which sort of trails based on the legal status of the public's access.. Staff is still destroying historically used trail connections. Simply acquiring a trail easement Without designing, funding and constructing the revised trail tread in-atimely fashion increases the liability of the City at large and reduces the public's access to emergency and recreational circulation. In the case of 10 Chaparral (CASE NO. ZON2010-00026), Staff is recommending more easement acquisition and more trail connection obliteration. This is not the Applicarift fault. City Council should not,have to delay this application, .again, in order for Staff to come up with both a more immediate and a more permanent solution. In the RPV General Plan, the "concept' (figure 22) is to preserve the trail connection through the Bronco neighborhood to both Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills. The existing trails cross 10 Chaparral. The RPV CTP indicates that Section Five, Trails F1 and F2 are to meet the Pedestrian/equestrian "challenging" and "Intermediate" standards, respectively. "The exact route is to be deli gne4prjor tqeasernertt�gon " *c ." (Emphasis added.) Stafrs current 4y, recommendation does not do that, The RPV Open Space Planning and Rec.& Parks Task Force proposed a Trails Development/ Maintenance Criteria. Staff has not yet produced an analysis of this design specification tool. It is our position that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes should avail themselves of all the professional and volunteer skills needed to design, negotiate the public access and arrange to construct a TYPE *5 trail corridor between the south end of the Stein -Hale Trail in RHE to the south end of Bronco Road prior to approving this GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, HEIGHT VARIATION & GRADING PERMIT. There is an abundance of "nexus". ATTACHMENT - 152 RE: Implementation of trail preEV'7','qtion opportunities P"'�,.2 of 2 Following is an assemblage of RPV documents. These are the basis from which Staff has been directed to propose and negotiate the legal and physical preservation of non -motorized circulation in conjunction with the health, safety and welfare of not just RPV residents but the community of the Peninsula as a whole. Like the condition for the construction of Terranea, this amenity should not be obstructed for more than thirty days during construction. "Planning" now is what is appropriate. ATTACHMENT - 153 So Kim Joel Rojas Ooelr@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:07 PM To: sok@rpv.com Subject: FW: 10 haparral Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red From: jeanlongacre@aol.com [mailto:jeanlongacre@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 12:39 PM To: pc@rpv.com Subject: 10 haparral Dear Planning Commissioners: I would like to thank the property owner of 10 Chaparral for his willingness to donate dedicated easements for trail use on his property. Having a link from Rancho Palos Verdes to the Hale -Stein Nature Trail in Rolling Hills is of vital importance to the East side of the City, especially to the Equestrian Q - District. Without it, we would be completely cut off from Rolling Hills Estates. I would also like to thank So Kim for her work on this application. Jean Longacre 6 Martingale Drive Rf 'h. o Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Page 1 of 1 2/28/2012 ATTACHMENT - 154 So Kim SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 12:20 PM To: nelsongang@aol.com Cc: sok@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com; clehr@rpv.com; tomo@rpv.com Subject: One little gap in the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Attachments: RPV RH RHE Spoke 2-0218.pdf ii• Subject: Re: Legal trails well maintained by RPV (10 Chaparral.) Date: 2/27/2012 9:29:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time From: Nelsoneangaaol.com To: SUnshineRPV(a),aol.com Sunshine, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR THE MAP! It came through purrrfectly. 1st trail map I've seen. Really`? For you, l marked up the map from the 1990.version of the RPV Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP). Tonight, I'll bring you the PV Loop Trail Project brochure from 1985. I need to tell you for years I have respected your professionalism in testifying and advocating before our towns groups and I do appreciate your emails. We have an interesting situation here that we will probably see again and af, n as RPV builds out. TNX. i escaped from The Hill's rural atmosphere for 10 years to 1977). 1 oh so took it for granted. Upon my return, I was so shocked at the loss that I hitched my wagon to Farmer G's star. Deterioration of off-road circulation will definitely keep happening as the whole Peninsula builds out. I just try to slow the flow. Making the Palos Verdes Loop Trail legally and physically open to humans in case of a disaster is on my "bucket list". Other then that, I have no great expectations. RHE is the latest to fall into non -rural majority voter demographics. Understanding I have not even been sworn in yet --- Welcome. 1. I see the issues are trail maintenance and liability. I don't. And, there is not much you can do to help as a Planning Commissioner. Trail maintenance is the same as all community infrastructure maintenance. The City Council gets to choose among things like paving roads, new window frames at City Hall, the gas line to Ladera Linda, fixing storm drains, leaning on utility companies to remove fire fuel on utility easements and funding the PV Preserve. It all comes down to what The Budget authorizes Staff to spend our money on. The only liability we are not covered for is Staff's errors and omissions. 2. l.kinda believe the best official answer on both would be from Carol Lynch, City Attorney. Carol is not our friend. She makes her living on creating legal adversities. 3. It looks like the map shows 10 Chap on spoke 2 crossing what I found to be a cliff when I hiked the property. Hum! It might be the trail coming down from Bronco but the map doesn't show that. I truly hope that when you are sworn in and given a free copy of the RPV General Plan (I paid $35.00 for my copy) you will ask for copies of the RPV Coastal Specific Plan, RPV Roadways Master Plan, RPV Parks Master Plan, RPV Trails Network Plan (including the C^nceptual Bikeways Plan and both the 1990 and 1993 versions of the RPV ( - +ceptual Trails Plan). The RPV Natural Communities Conservation Plan has not yet been approved by the State of California so the 50 year contract with the PVP Page 1 of 2 2/28/2012 ATTACHMENT - 155 Page 2 of 2 Land Conservancy still.has some "fuzzy edges". 4,.,,--7!,.ve got a Google picture showing the trail I'll bring. The problem with aerial photos is that when a trail goes under s, you can't see it. Looking forward to seeing you tomorrow night. Bob Nelson 310-544-4632 It came up in a Staff Report to Council about renaming parks. It takes staff time (i.e. extra costs) to inform all of the mapping authorities about the change. Boo Hoo. See the attached map. Nobody bothered to inform Thomas Brothers, LA County and the Real Estate industry when RPV moved Martingale Trailhead Park. It may look like a "cliff' to you. Equestrians, runners and dog walkers have been using this trail connection for multiple decades. (Hikers don't count. They go wherever they want regardless of the legalities.) Anyway, I have marked the existing trail easements and easement offers which RPV has acquired in support of this off-road connection. And, the professionally designed "ideal route" which meets RPV's "challenging "trail development standards. Many more property owners are impacted in their more than 35 percent slopes. My point is that the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network should not lose another historic trail connection (10 Chaparral) while the RPV Community Development Department celebrates the acquisition of an easement without making arrangements with the Public Works Department, Finance Department and the City Council to physically improve the relocated trail connection. Restoration/relocation of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail at 69 Rockinghorse and 2477 Sunnyside Ridge Road are not just suffering from a lack of funding. They are suffering from a lack of community priority. utice that around the attached map, 10 Chaparral is listed for sale. Should little developers be treated any differently than big developers as opposed to actual residents? The RPV General Plan is supposed to be for the "big picture". ...S 2/28/2012 ATTACHMENT - 156 So Kim Madeline Ryan [pvpasofino@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 9:38 PM To: So Kim Cc: Joel Rojas; pc@rpv.com Subject: PC Meeting 2-28-12 - Case No. 2010-00025 #10 Chapparal Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Dear So You and Staff should be commended for approaching the developer of this project to continue a trail access point from his property to the RHE Georgette Nature Trail. Thank you for listening to the residents and trail users about the critical link this property affords to the Peninsula trails network. We believe this may be the first in our history with the City, and hope for many future dedicated easements from developers and homeowners to enhance our trails network. After all, when developers and home owners are looking for General Plan changes, zoning changes, height variations, etc, etc. there should be some public benefit in exchange for granting so many changes and variations. Because of the many challenges facing the developer in proceeding with this project and the residents of Chaparral Lane who will have to endure the daily construction noise, debris, traffic and heavy equipment working and being staged, may we suggest that the Planning Commission conduct an on-site meeting of this project before making any decision so as to experience this property, locale and gift of land that is being made to the City for future trail us -r And, please keep in mind that the existing trail and soon-to-be dedicated easement should remain open and u% ' ructed during the course of development, if and when all changes and variations are approved. In appreciation of your efforts, Madeline Ryan Ray Van Dinther 28328 Palos Verdes Drive East 28150 Palos Verdes Drive East RPV RPV "May the Trails be with you"... Madeline Page 1 of 1 2/27/2012 ATTACHMENT - 157 So Kim <<n: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 7:57 PM To: pc@rpv.com; sok@rpv.com Cc: cc@rpv.com Subject: CASE NO. 2010-00025 (10 Chaparral.) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red MEMO from Sunshine TO: RPV Planning Commission and Staff (Copy to City Council.) RE: February 28, 2012 Public Hearing on CASE NO. 2010-00025 (10 Chaparral.) I know it is just an unnoticed typo but I can't resist pointing out how much Joel's new title reads like the Latin for Ominous Immunity Development Director. "Quacks like a duck..." Don't get me wrong, I have read Staff's reply to the Commission about Staff's handicaps in relation to implementing the RPV Conceptual Trails Plan. This particular recommendation is carefully crafted to get your approval without putting anybody in harm's way in a legal sense. ( don't recall who originally said... "He who does not study history is doomed to r =at it." This truth is running rampant in RPV. Does no one remember the trail debacles that have been created by Staff's myopia in just this little northeast corner of our original City? The RPV City Council happily takes on the liability of acquiring park sites and trail easements. Then, it is nobody's job to add these new amenities to the Public Works Dept.'s Budget. The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) is about as useful to the ongoing community infrastructure and emergency circulation as tits on a man. May I be so bold as to bring up the fact that this trail connection is not "conceptual" as in it is not a Planner's "dream". It exists as we live and breath. See Appendix 2 of the 1990 RPV Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) which went missing in the appendices but not the text in the 1993 CTP update. The only thing "conceptual" about this trail is that Amendment 22 of the RPV General Plan gives Staff the directive to negotiate the preservation of the connection (point-to-point) at a given physical standard. In this case, "challenging". In 1990 whatever, (at 2477 Sunnyside Ridge Road), Staff really screwed up by prohibiting grading in the City's easement instead of negotiating with the home builder's grading contractor to relocate the trail tread while he was on site. Staff is doing it again. Yea! Trail advocates get a trail easement. Boo! Trail users will be deprived until Staff restores the trail connection. i Staff how they are doing at restoring the trail on the relocated trail easement at 69 Rockinghorse, the north side of the Miraleste Library, the Crest Road East roadside, Page 1 of 2 2/27/2012 ATTACHMENT - 158 Page 2 of 2 ad nausium. canou ut the burden of complyingwith the .Y p RPV General Plan on Staff without intruding any further on the property owner? Sunshine 6 Limetree Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310 377-8761 So Kim Damon Swank [damon.swank1685@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 12:44 AM To: sok@rpv.com Subject: Environmental Check -list: No. 10 Chaparral, RPV I was pleased to discuss several of these issues with you yesterday afternoon. You were courteous, helpful, and informative. I do have several concerns with your checklist. These concerns will be set forth below. Aesthetics: a) b) c) d) The proposed residence enormously exceeds in height any local residence. Although it is located down in the canyon, its roof line towers above the dining and living room of adjacent #7 Chaparral. Although perched well above #10, residents of #7 will be looking Uwards at #10. which will completely block their view. The owners of #7 purchased their home, in large part, by reason of the lovely view of the canyon to the West. Construction of the proposed #10 will demolish that lovely view. Also, the interior and exterior lighting of #10 will obliterate the quiet, scenic view from #7. 4'' r significant rock outcropping, known to local geologists as "The Library,." lies on the extreme southwestern portion of the property. We have no assurance that it will not be demolished during the extensive excavations. 3: Air Quality: b) c) This project proposes huge earth moving efforts: tens or hundreds of thousands of cubic feet. The project site lies in a canyon in which the prevailing air currents race down the canyon. The homes on Chaparral are directly downwind -- #6 and #7 are the most greatly impacted -- and will be subjected to all of the windblown dirt. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) i); a) iii b) C) e) Who says that the soil is capable of supporting septic tanks? This property lies directly ar" the stream in the canyon. The effluent from the property might well drain into the flow of the,ream. Page 1 of 4 2/23/2012 ATTACHMENT - 160 Page 2 of 4 Rupture of a known earthquake fault.... he city geologist may rely on a map, but who do you believe: the lying map or your own eyes? It is more than clear that the land is sliding downhill. At the bottom, if overflows Chaparral Lane. Midway uphill it is proven by examination confirmed by photographs to have been moving. Farther uphill homes have been wrecked by landslides. These landslides currently undermine neighboring homes. What does it take to recognize a hazard? The land is sliding downhill at the top, the middle, and the bottom. Surely it is optimistic to believe that a petty little retaining wall at the bottom will suffice. Re: Geology Comments. Page 11/16 Two points: One does not need to consult a geologic map to determine if the hillside is, or will, slide. Simply observe: the land is and has been sliding at the top, the middle, and the bottom of the hill. Use your eyes to view the landslides. Ignore the pontification of the maps that slides will not occur. The slides are there. You can see them. It should be obvious to those with common sense that a little retaining wall at the bottom will be useless when the mass of the hill slides down. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials b) h) I suggest that a large quantity of wind-blown dirt is hazardous. The proposed project contemplates an enormous moving of earth. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands -- the number is not stated -- to be moved. #6 and #7 Chaparral lie directly downwind of the proposed project. The wind blows inland from the sea, directly down the canyon from the project to the afflicted residences. The proposed grading and excavation of the project site will impose immense quantities of dust and soil on these homes. My projection is that the grading will take 3-6 months. Such a situation is intolerable. Emergency response: The developer has, apparently, already set the hill on fire. At the very least, it appears that the fire was ignited at precisely the point where the developer crews were erecting the structure and that the crew disappeared immediately afterwards. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING b) The proposed "realigning" of the boundaries of the existing zoning ordinances constitutes an affront to the planning process. rather than proposing a change in zoning, which would require hearings, and evidence, and community input, the current request is to "piggy -back" a zoning change into this EIR. This is nonsense. It should not be permitted. The EIR 2/23/2012 ATTACHMENT - 161 Page 3 of 4 deals with environmental considerations. Zoning is an altogether different subject. Tothin in this checklist supports a zoning chane The proposal is that the historical) established hazardous area Pp g g P P Y shit be magically transformed into a residential development area. This city has for decades denominated the land of the proposed project to be hazardous. In the past, potential developers have been rudely rebuffed: Lowell Blough, who built #4, #6, and #7 Chaparral, was denied even a grading permit. A casual inspection of the geological differences between #7 and #10 will demonstrate the wisdom of that decision. 12. NOISE a) b) C) d) The proposed project contemplates dozens of humongous earth -moving machines. The project lies within a canon. The noise reflects between the canyon walls. The noise generated by the proposed project will be immense: huge earth -movers working each day over my projected time of six months. The noise will be deafening, intense, and incessant. 16. TRAFFIC u) Chaparral Lane is a narrow, minor, driveway servicing the residences. It is private property, maintained at the expense of the homeowners. Use of this minor lane by bulldozers, huge trucks, cement mixers, and the like is an incompatible use. The homeowners on Chaparral Lane have children and grandchildren who play on the lane. The incessant intrusion of huge construction vehicles will destroy the ability of the homeowners to enjoy the peace, safety. and quiet that they have bought and paid for. Chaparral Lane is not designed for large vehicles. The pavement will be destroyed. Chaparral Lane is not a public street. It is private property, maintained by those who use it. These private owners of Chaparral Lane have not agreed that their private property may be destroyed by the proposed project. To the contrary, these homeowners who own and maintain their street demand and insist that their property be not destroyed by the passage of huge construction vehicles. Additionally, Chaparral Lane is a two-way lane for small vehicles in the best of conditions. The enormously large vehicles contemplated by the proposed project will reduce the lane to one-way traffic only, which will prevent easy access by fire fighters and other emergency equipment to the homeowners. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The nearest water distribution point is several hundred yards East on Chaparral Lane. To access this water will 2/23/2012 ATTACHMENT - 162 Page 4 of 4 require the developer to tear up the street for this entire length. �.. �o iMANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE b) Cumulatively, the proposed project destroys the ambiance of those residents nearby. Currently, they enjoy a beautiful view of a lovely canyon. The residents of 47 Chaparral have used the view of the canon as a backdrop for holiday photographs. As proposed, the new residence will rise above its uphill neighbors. #10 is down in the canyon. #7 is up on the hill. However, the roof line of proposed #10 rises above the level of #7. This means -- get a handle on this -- that the residents of #7 will be looking UPWARD to the roof line of their new neighbor. The view in that direction will be blocked by this enormous structure. Who approved this height variance? When were the public hearings? When were we permitted to object, or to present testimony? Thank you so much for permitting me to provide information to you. Respectfully, basion Swank 2/23/2012 ATTACHMENT - 163 P 1090868.) PG P 1090870.J PG P 1090869.J PG ATTACHMENT - 165