Loading...
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_05_06_01_Final_EIR_&_Code_Amendment_for_Zone_21-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 1-9 1-10 1-11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ZONE 2 FINAL EIR Attachments 1-1 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project and the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and residual impacts associated with the proposed project. PROJECT SYNOPSIS Project Sponsor: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Contact: Eduardo Schonborn, AICP, (310) 544-5228 Project Description The proposed ordinance revisions would apply to the approximately 112-acre “Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance”1 area, located north of the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive South and Narcissa Drive in the Portuguese Bend area of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, California. This area, located on the hills above the south-central coastline of the City, is within the City’s larger (approximately 1,200- acre) Landslide Moratorium Area (LMA). Zone 2 consists of 111 individual lots. Of these, 64 are developed with residences and accessory structures and 47 are undeveloped lots or lots developed with structures other than residences. These latter 47 lots, which include the 16 Monks’ lots, are the focus of this EIR. Project Background. In 2002, a group of Portuguese Bend property owners filed a Moratorium Exception(ME) application to exclude their undeveloped lots within the area known as “Zone 2” from the LMA. Shortly after this application was deemed incomplete for processing, the applicants filed suit against the City. As part of the decision in the case (Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes), the City has been ordered to remove regulatory impediments in its Municipal Code that prevent the development of the 16 Monks plaintiffs’ lots. The City began this process with an Ordinance to allow the Monks plaintiffs to apply for Landslide Moratorium Exceptions (LMEs) for their lots. As of January 2012, nine (8) Monks plaintiffs have obtained Planning entitlements to develop their lots, while the remaining Monks plaintiffs are at various stages in obtaining Planning entitlements for the balance of eight (8) lots. The City now desires to consider broader revisions to the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance that could also permit the owners of the other 31 undeveloped lots in Zone 2 to be developed with new residences. This would result in the possible future development of up to 47 new residences on existing legal lots in Zone 2 within the Portuguese Bend community. 1 According to the June 1, 1993 “[Dr. Perry] Ehlig memo”, Zone 2 includes “Subdivided land unaffected by large historic landslides”. And, “Zone 2 includes about 130 acres within existing Tract 14195 and Tract 14500 (except lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 which are in the Portuguese Bend landslide), and the subdivided land served by Vanderlip Drive. It is an area of subdued topography within the central part of the large ancient landslide. Slopes of 5:1 and less prevail over most of the central and downhill parts of Zone 2. Slopes generally range between 5:1 and 3:1 in the uphill part”. Attachments 1-2 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions. Section 15.20.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code establishes the process for requesting exceptions from the City’s landslide moratorium regulations. The current (amended in 2009) Municipal Code Section 15.20.040(P) includes the following category of exception to the moratorium on “the filing, processing, approval or issuance of building, grading or other permits” within the existing landslide moratorium area: The moratorium shall not be applicable to any of the following:… …P. The construction of residential buildings, accessory structures, and grading totaling less than one thousand cubic yards of combined cut and fill and including no more than fifty cubic yards of imported fill material on the sixteen undeveloped lots in Zone 2 of the “Landslide Moratorium Area” as outlined in green on the landslide moratorium map on file in the Director's office, identified as belonging to the plaintiffs in the case “Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 167 Cal. App. 4th 263, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 75 (Cal. App. 2 Dist., 2008)”; provided, that a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved by the Director, and provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in Section 15.20.050 of this Chapter. Such projects shall qualify for a landslide moratorium exception permit only if all applicable requirements of this Code are satisfied, and the parcel is served by a sanitary sewer system. Prior to the issuance of a landslide moratorium exception permit, the applicant shall submit to the Director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the City to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation. The proposed landslide moratorium ordinance revisions would revise the language of this section to encompass all 47 undeveloped lots in Zone 2, rather than restricting it to only the 16 Monks plaintiffs’ lots. This would allow for the future submittal of LMEs for all of these undeveloped lots. It should be noted, however, that the granting of an LME does not constitute approval of a specific project permit request, but simply grants the property owner the ability to submit the appropriate entitlement application(s) for consideration of a specific project request. Future Development Potential. The potential granting of up to 47 LME requests under the proposed ordinance revisions would permit individual property owners to then apply for individual entitlements to develop their lots. The undeveloped lots within Zone 2 are held in multiple private ownerships so the timing and scope of future development is not known. For the purposes of this EIR, it is assumed that development would occur over a period of at least 10 years from adoption of the ordinance revisions, in a manner consistent with the private architectural standards adopted by the Portuguese Bend Community Association and the City’s applicable underlying RS-1 or RS-2 zoning regulations. Therefore, the future development assumptions for Zone 2 include the following:  Forty-seven single-story, ranch-style residences with attached or detached three-car garages, with minimum living area of 1,500 square feet and maximum living area of 4,000 square feet or 15% of gross lot area, whichever is less;  Less than 1,000 cubic yards of grading (cut and fill combined) per lot, with no more than 50 cubic yards of imported fill per lot; Attachments 1-3 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-3  Maximum 25% (RS-1) or 40% (RS-2) net lot coverage;  Maximum building height of 16 feet for residences and 12 feet for detached accessory structures;  Minimum front setbacks of 20 feet, minimum rear setbacks of 15 feet, minimum street-side setbacks of 10 feet, and minimum interior side setbacks of five feet, with setbacks along private street rights-of-way measured from the easement line rather than the property line; and,  No subdivision of existing lots within Zone 2. As noted above, the City has been ordered to remove regulatory impediments in its Municipal Code that prevent the development of the 16 Monks plaintiffs’ lots. This was accomplished by the 2009 addition to the moratorium exceptions, cited above. As of January 2012, nine Monks plaintiffs have obtained Planning entitlements to develop their lots, while the remaining Monks plaintiffs are at various stages in obtaining Planning entitlements for the balance of the eight lots. However, to provide a conservative analysis, this EIR considers the potential environmental impacts of buildout of all 47 undeveloped and underdeveloped lots (16 Monks lots plus 31 additional lots) under the parameters listed above. ALTERNATIVES As required by Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. The following alternatives were evaluated:  Alternative 1: No Project - This alternative assumes that the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance revisions would not be adopted and that only the 16 Monks’ lots would be developed. Development potential would not be increased on the other 31 vacant parcels or parcels developed with structures other than residences, and they would remain in their current condition.  Alternative 2: Reduced Building Area Alternative - Similar to the proposed project, this alternative assumes that the proposed ordinance revisions would potentially allow up to 47 LME requests which would permit individual property owners to then apply for individual entitlements to develop their lots. However, under this alternative the ordinance revisions would further restrict allowable development on each lot so that allowed building size would be reduced by approximately 38% and the amount of grading allowed for development would be reduced by 50%.  Alternative 3: Subdivision of Larger Lots Alternative - This alternative would include subdivision of the 47 subject undeveloped lots or those lots developed with structures other than residencesin the project area that are divisible to the minimum lot sizes allowed under their respective zoning designations. Of the 47 lots considered, 16 lots are potentially divisible according to the existing RS-1 and RS-2 zone standards. Based on preliminary analysis, this alternative assumes that these 16 divisible lots can be divided into 62 lots (net increase of 46 lots). Thus, under this alternative the potential number of new residences in the project area would be approximately 93, compared to the 47 residences considered by the proposed project. Attachments 1-4 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-4  Alternative 4: Reduced Housing Units Alternative - This alternative assumes that the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance revisions would allow up to 19 new residential units within the project area. Development potential would not be increased on the other 28 vacant or underdeveloped parcels, and they would remain in their current condition. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Based on public comments raised during the scoping period on the Notice of Preparation, areas of controversy have been identified in several issue areas, most notably in relation to potential geologic hazards; area drainage and potential water quality impacts; and traffic, including construction and emergency access. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Table ES-1 summarizes the proposed project’s significant environmental impacts, recommended mitigation, and residual impacts. Please note that a number of potential impacts are addressed in the Initial Study (Appendix A to the EIR), where they were determined to be less than significant without the need for mitigation measures or further analysis in the EIR. These include impacts related to:  Agricultural Resources  Land Use and Planning  Mineral Resources  Population and Housing  Public Services  Recreation Please refer to the Initial Study, Appendix A to this EIR, for further information related to these issues. Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation AESTHETICS AES-1 The project area is located within a scenic public viewshed of the Pacific Ocean and the Palos Verdes hillsides and coastline. Individual lots and some private roads within the project area also have views of the ocean, hillsides and open space. However, because the lots where development could be facilitated by the proposed ordinance revisions are located within a private community consisting of highly variable topography and substantial tree cover, the potential development of up to 47 new single- None required. Less than significant without mitigation. Attachments 1-5 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-5 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation family residences would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. This is a Class III less than significant impact. AES-2 Parcels within Zone 2 contain vegetation of varying types and densities, and the development of residences on up to 47 undeveloped and underdeveloped private lots within the project area would likely result in the removal of mature trees and vegetation. As tree groupings within the project area have been identified as scenic resources in the General Plan, impacts would be Class II, significant but mitigable. AES-2 As part of approvals for development on the individual subject lots, the City shall require that future development on the affected lots avoid removal of or substantial damage to existing trees to the extent feasible. Where tree removal or substantial damage cannot be feasibly avoided during development, tree replacement shall be required using a ratio, stock, species and monitoring requirements sufficient to ensure a minimum 1:1 replacement five or more years after removal. When selecting replacement tree species, consideration should be given to species that, as they grow to full stature, would be less likely to result in obstruction of views for adjacent properties. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-2 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. AES-3 The potential development of additional residences within the Zone 2 project area would introduce new structures and new landscaping and hardscape on up to 47 open and mostly undeveloped sites throughout the Portuguese Bend community. This would incrementally increase the density of development throughout the 112-acre project area. Although the general land use pattern and scale and type of development would be maintained, impacts to the existing visual character and quality of the project area and its surroundings would be Class II, significant but mitigable. AES-3 Compatibility Analysis. All new residences shall be subject to neighborhood compatibility analysis under the provisions of Section 17.02.030.B (Neighborhood Compatibility) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-3 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. AES-4 The proposed ordinance revisions would result in new sources of light and glare within the project area due to introduction of up to 47 new residences and associated lighting. Some of the new light and glare would be visible from public and private viewpoints. This would be a Class II, significant but mitigable. AES-4 Exterior Illumination. Exterior illumination for new residences shall be subject to the provisions of Section 17.56.030 (Outdoor Lighting for Residential Uses) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. Key standards that must be adhered to include the following:  No outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is Adherence to the code requirements listed in Mitigation Measure AES-4 would reduce the impacts of lighting from new residential development to less than significant levels. Attachments 1-6 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-6 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation physically located. Individual, nonreflector, incandescent light bulbs, not exceeding one hundred fifty watts each, or an aggregate of one thousand watts for each lot or parcel shall be permitted. On lots exceeding fifteen thousand square feet, an additional one hundred watts in the aggregate shall be permitted for each one thousand five hundred square feet of area or major fraction thereof, by which the lot or parcel exceeds fifteen thousand square feet; provided, that in no event shall the aggregate exceed two thousand watts. As used herein, the term "watts" is irrespective of the voltage.  No outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source or fixture, if located on a building, above the line of the eaves, or if located on a standard or pole, more than ten feet above grade. AIR QUALITY AQ-1 Onsite construction activity would generate air pollutant emissions that would not exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds for ROC, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5. However, construction-related emissions would exceed SCAQMD LSTs for PM10 and PM2.5. With implementation of mitigation, temporary construction impacts would be Class II, significant but mitigable. AQ-1(a) Fugitive Dust Control Measures. The following shall be implemented during construction to minimize fugitive dust emissions:  Soil with 5% or greater silt content that is stockpiled for more than two days must be covered and treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.  Trucks transporting material must be tarped from the point of origin or must maintain at least two feet of freeboard.  Soil stabilizers must be applied to unpaved roads to prevent excess amounts of dust.  All material excavated or graded must be treated with soil binders preferably in the morning, midday and after work is done for the day.  Ground cover must be replaced in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.  All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities must cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour) so as to prevent Implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1(a) and AQ- 1(b) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Attachments 1-7 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-7 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation excessive amounts of dust.  The contractor must provide adequate loading/unloading areas that limit track-out onto adjacent roadways through the utilization of wheel washing, rumble plates, or another method achieving the same intent.  All material transported off-site must be securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.  Face masks must be used by all employees involved in grading or excavation operations during dry periods to reduce inhalation of dust which may contain the fungus which causes San Joaquin Valley Fever.  All residential units located within 500 feet of the construction site must be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule of the proposed project. A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet must also be posted in a prominent and visible location at the construction site, and must be maintained throughout the construction process. All notices and the signs must indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints.  Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the project must be prevented to the maximum extent feasible.  These control techniques must be indicated in project specifications. Compliance with the measure shall be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. AQ-1(b) Construction Vehicles. Trucks and other construction vehicles shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project sites or in the adjoining public or private rights-of-way before 7:00 am, Monday through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction state in Section 17.56.020.B of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. Attachments 1-8 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-8 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation AQ-2 Operation of new residences that could be built as a result of the proposed ordinance revisions would generate air pollutant emissions. However, emissions would not exceed SCAQMD operational significance thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore, operational air quality impacts would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant without mitigation. AQ-3 Traffic that could be generated by new residences constructed as a result of adoption of the proposed ordinance revisions, together with cumulative traffic growth in the area, would not create carbon monoxide concentrations exceeding state or federal standards. Localized air quality impacts would therefore be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant without mitigation. AQ-4 Adoption of the proposed ordinance revisions would have the potential to generate population growth, but such growth would be within the population projections upon which the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) are based. Therefore, impacts associated with AQMP consistency for the project would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant without mitigation. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1 Special Status Species. Potential development that would be facilitated by the proposed ordinance revisions would not significantly affect special status species due to the lack of suitable habitat, level and frequency of existing human disturbance onsite, and existing regulations under the Natural Overlay Control District (OC-1) that would restrict construction to areas not likely occupied by the San Diego desert woodrat. While the increased human presence is considered adverse, it would not be substantially different or increased over existing conditions, and no significant effect is anticipated. Therefore, impacts to Special Status Species would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant without mitigation. BIO-2 Sensitive Plant Communities. Development of some of the undeveloped lots in Zone 2 has the BIO-2 Biological Survey. For lots that are identified as containing sensitive habitat on the City’s most- Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce impacts to a less Attachments 1-9 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-9 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation potential to significantly impact existing or regrown Coastal Sage Scrub habitat, either through the direct removal of habitat during construction or as a result of Fire Department-mandated fuel modification on and/or off site (i.e., in the Reserves) after construction of new residences. In that event, effects to this sensitive plant community would be considered potentially significant and impacts would be Class II, significant but mitigable. recent vegetation maps and/or that abut any portion of the current or proposed future boundary of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, each applicant shall be required to prepare a biological survey as a part of a complete application for the development of the lot. Said survey shall identify the presence or absence of sensitive plant and animal species identified in the City’s adopted NCCP on the subject property, and shall quantify the direct and indirect impacts of the construction of the residence upon such species, including off-site habitat impacts as a result of Fire Department-mandated fuel modification. The applicant and/or any successors in interest to the subject property shall be required to mitigate such habitat loss through the payment of a mitigation fee to the City’s Habitat Restoration Fund. than significant level. BIO-3 Wetland Habitat and Jurisdictional Drainages. Construction activities within eight lots adjacent to Altamira Canyon could potentially affect jurisdictional drainage areas. This impact is considered Class II, significant but mitigable. BIO 3(a) Agency Coordination. The City shall review each application for construction and determine if proposed development is within the drainage channel within Altamira Canyon. If so, the applicant shall be required to obtain permits, agreements, and/or water quality certifications or correspondence indicating that none are necessary from applicable state and federal agencies regarding compliance with state and federal laws governing work within jurisdictional waters. Such agencies would include the California Department of Fish and Game, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The applicant shall provide such permits and/or agreements prior to the granting of a building or grading permit. BIO 3(b) Habitat Restoration. In the event an application for construction would result in the loss of riparian or wetland vegetation, the applicant shall restore such habitat at a minimum ratio of 1:1 for temporary loss and 3:1 for permanent loss. Such restoration can occur either on site or within disturbed areas of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve as determined and approved by the City. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-3 (a-b) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Attachments 1-10 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-10 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation BIO-4 Wildlife Movement. No significant impacts are anticipated with respect to night lighting and noise given the existing residential use of the area. Although the regionally important habitat area (RIHA) is protected by the policies of the Natural Overlay District (OC-1), tree removal associated with development facilitated by the proposed project could affect birds including the California gnatcatcher. Impacts to nesting birds as a result of tree removal would be Class II, significant but mitigable. BIO-4 Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. The City shall require that tree pruning and removal is conducted outside of the bird breeding season (generally February 1 through August 31). If vegetation clearing (including tree pruning and removal) or other project construction is to be initiated during the bird breeding season, pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by MBTA and the Fish and Game Code of California, nesting bird surveys shall be performed twice per week during the three weeks prior to the scheduled felling of the trees on the site. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the Community Development Director. If any active non-raptor bird nests are found, the tree(s) or vegetation shall not be cut down and a suitable buffer area (varying from 25-300 feet) depending on the particular species found is established from the nest, and that area is avoided until the nest becomes inactive (vacated). If any active raptor bird nests are found, a suitable buffer area (typically 250-500 feet from the nest) depending upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site, shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the City-approved biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting birds surveys are not required for construction activities occurring from September 1 to January 31. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Attachments 1-11 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-11 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation BIO-5 Local Policies and Ordinances. The proposed ordinance revisions would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant without mitigation. BIO-6 Conflict with Adopted Habitat Preservation Plan or Natural Communities Conservation Plan. Potential development under the proposed ordinance revisions would have the potential to conflict with guidelines of the NCCP. Therefore, impacts would be Class II, significant but mitigable. BIO 6(a) Structure Location. To avoid the need for continued fuel management within the Filiorum Reserve, the City shall require that all structures for those lots abutting the Filiorum Reserve property boundary are located at least 100 feet from that boundary. BIO 6(b) Perimeter Fences. As part of approvals for development on the individual subject lots, the City shall require that lots adjoining the Filiorum Reserve are fenced sufficient to prevent the ready egress of domestic animals into the Reserve. In addition, no gates or other means of ingress into the Reserve shall be permitted. BIO 6(c) Construction Best Management Practices. The following measures shall be required for those lots that abut Reserve lands as part of construction monitoring for the site: • Contractors shall be educated regarding the off-site Reserve and the need to keep equipment and personnel within the project site prior to the initiation of construction. • Temporary construction fencing shall be placed at the planned limits of disturbance adjacent to the Reserve. • Construction should be scheduled to avoid the bird nesting season (see Mitigation Measure BIO-4 above). • Construction grading adjacent to drainages shall be scheduled for the dry season whenever feasible. BIO-6(d) Construction Staging and Stockpiling Areas. Grading and building plans submitted for City review and approval for those lots abutting Reserve lands shall identify areas for construction staging, fueling and stockpiling if needed. These areas shall be located as far as practical from Reserve lands, and not closer than 50 feet from the PVNP boundary. Less than significant. Attachments 1-12 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-12 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation CULTURAL RESOURCES CR-1 Potential development that the proposed ordinance revisions could facilitate on the undeveloped lots, which could include up to 1,000 cubic yards of grading per lot, has the potential to disturb as-yet undetected areas of prehistoric archaeological significance. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable, impact. CR-1 Archaeological Monitoring. Prior to the commencement of grading, the applicant shall retain a qualified archeologist to monitor grading and excavation. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work shall be halted or diverted from the resource area and the archeologist shall evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. CR-2 Grading for development that could be facilitated by the proposed ordinance revisions has low potential to disturb any paleontological resources. Impacts to paleontological resources would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant without mitigation. CR-3 Grading for development that could be facilitated by the proposed ordinance revisions has the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. With adherence to existing regulations that address discovery of human remains during grading and construction, impacts would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant without mitigation. GEOLOGY GEO-1 Seismically-induced ground shaking could result in the exposure of people and structures that could be introduced to the area as a result of the proposed ordinance revisions to adverse effects. However, mandatory compliance with applicable CBC requirements would reduce impacts to a Class III, less than significant, level. None required. Less than significant without mitigation. GEO-2 Construction on individual lots in Zone 2 facilitated by the proposed ordinance revisions could cause or accelerate erosion, such that slope failure could occur. Operation of the project, which would allow for 47 single-family homes to be developed in the project area, could potentially cause or accelerate downstream erosion. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 and Mitigation Measure HWQ-4 identified in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, impacts Mitigation Measure HWQ-1, as identified in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, would be required to reduce erosion during construction to a less than significant level. In addition, pursuant to Mitigation Measure HWQ-4 in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, each of the individual developers would be required to comply with each of the points listed below, pursuant to the review and approval by the City Building Official: Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures HWQ-1 and HWQ-4. Attachments 1-13 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-13 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation would be Class II, significant but mitigable. • Illustrate that point flow on each of the properties is either normalized, attenuated adequately, or will reach an acceptable conveyance such as a storm drain, channel, or natural drainage course. All runoff shall be directed to an acceptable conveyance and shall not be allowed to drain to localized sumps or catchment areas with no outlet. • Maintain existing drainage patterns and outlet at historical outlet points • Minimize changes to the character of the runoff at property lines. Changes in character include concentration of flow outletting onto adjacent properties or increasing the frequency or duration of runoff outletting onto adjacent properties • Reduce increases in runoff by utilizing appropriate and applicable low impact development principles • Provide onsite detention facilities or conveyance to acceptable off-lot conveyance devices • Minimize “Dry Weather” runoff which could add to the total infiltration from the project GEO-3 The project area is located on a geologic unit that could be unstable or could potentially become unstable as a result of development facilitated by the proposed ordinance revisions. With implementation of mitigation measures GEO-3(a) and GEO-3(b), impacts would be Class II, significant but mitigable. GEO-3(a) Geotechnical Recommendations. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or Building Permit, individual project applicants shall comply with all recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Study prepared by LGC Valley, Inc., dated March 29, 2011, including the following, which shall be reflected in the geotechnical/soils reports for individual projects:  Conform to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Landslide Moratorium Ordinance (Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Chapter 15.20).  Less than 1,000 cubic yards of grading (cut and fill combined) per lot, with no more than 50 cubic yards of imported fill per lot.  The property owners shall agree to participate in the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District and/or other recognized or approved districts whose purpose is to maintain the land in a geologically stable condition. No proposed Impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance under CEQA with implementation of mitigation measures GEO-3(a) and GEO-3(b) and compliance with applicable requirements of the most recent CBC. Attachments 1-14 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-14 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation building activity may cause lessening of stability in the zone.  Prior to issuance of a building permit, a geotechnical report shall be submitted to and approved by the City’s geotechnical reviewers indicating what, if any, lot-local and immediately adjacent geologic hazards must be addressed and/or corrected prior to, or during construction. Said report shall specify foundation designs based on field and laboratory studies.  Post-construction lot infiltration and runoff rates and volume shall be made equal to pre-construction conditions through use of appropriate low impact development principles such as, but not limited to, detaining peak flows and use of cisterns, bio-retention areas, green roofs and permeable hardscape.  All houses shall connect to a public sanitary sewer system. Any necessary easements shall be provided.  Storm drainage improvements to reduce lot infiltration of run-off shall be designed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits.  All lot drainage deficiencies, if any, identified by the Director of Public Works City staff shall be corrected. The design of pools, ponds and sumps shall be subject to City review and approval.  Runoff from all buildings and paved areas not infiltrated or retained/detained on site to match existing conditions shall be collected and directed to the street or to an approved drainage course as approved by the City EngineerDirector of Public Works. • All other relevant building code requirements shall be met. GEO-3(b) Covenant. Individual project applicants shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to construct the project strictly in accordance with the approved plans and agreeing to prohibit further projects on the subject site Attachments 1-15 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-15 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation without first filing an application with the Director pursuant to the terms of Chapter 15.20 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director for recordation prior to the issuance of a building permit. GEO-4 The project area is in a Seismic Hazard Zone for earthquake- induced landslides. Therefore, project area development would inherently be subject to risks associated with seismically-induced landslides. However, with implementation of mitigation measures GEO-3(a) and GEO-3(b) requiring that potential new construction on each lot be designed in compliance with site-specific geotechnical recommendations, impacts would be Class II, significant but mitigable. Mitigation measures GEO-3(a) and GEO-3(b) above would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. In particular, Mitigation Measure GEO-3(a) would require each applicant to submit a geotechnical report for review and approval by the City’s geotechnical reviewers indicating any geologic hazards that need to be addressed and/or corrected prior to construction. In addition, Mitigation Measure GEO-3(b) would require each individual project applicant to record a covenant agreeing to construct the project strictly in accordance with the approved plans. Because each individual single-family residential site would be required to prepare a geotechnical report and would be required to construct the project strictly according to approved plans, potential seismically-induced landsliding effects would be addressed on a site-specific basis. Impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance under CEQA with incorporation of mitigation measures GEO-3(a) and GEO-3(b). GEO-5 The project area is not susceptible to liquefaction, ground lurching, lateral spreading or seismic settlement. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant without mitigation. GEO-6 Soils within the project area are moderately to highly expansive. With implementation of mitigation measures GEO-3(a) and GEO-3(b), impacts related to expansive soils would be Class II, significant but mitigable. Implementation of mitigation measures GEO-3(a) and GEO-3(b) would be required to reduce impacts related to expansive soils. Mitigation Measure GEO-3(a), as described above, requires that the project conform to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Landslide Moratorium Ordinance, grade less than 1,000 cubic yards per lot, participate in ACLAD and/or other recognized or approved districts whose purpose is to maintain the land in a geologically stable condition, and submit a geotechnical report to the City’s geotechnical reviewers prior to construction. Further, Mitigation Measure GEO-3(b) would ensure that With implementation of mitigation measures GEO- 3(a) and GEO-3(b), impacts related to expansive soils would be reduced to a less than significant level. Attachments 1-16 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-16 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation these geotechnical report recommendations are actually implemented into the project by requiring individual project applicants to record a covenant agreeing to construct the project strictly in accordance with the approved plans. With implementation of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report as required by Mitigation Measure GEO- 3(a) and by constructing the project strictly according to approved plans as required by Mitigation Measure GEO- 3(b), impacts related to expansive soils would be reduced to a less than significant level. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GHG-1 Development that could be facilitated by the proposed ordinance revisions would generate additional GHG emissions beyond existing conditions. However, GHG emissions generated by full development potential within Zone 2 would not exceed relevant significance thresholds. Further, the proposed project would be generally consistent with the Climate Action Team GHG reduction strategies, the 2008 Attorney General Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures and the CAPCOA GHG Model Policies Guide. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant without mitigation. FIRE PROTECTION FIRE-1 The project area is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is adjacent to the Portuguese Bend and Upper Filiorum subareas of the Rancho Palos Verdes Nature Preserve on the north, east and west. New residences constructed as a result of adoption of the proposed ordinance revisions could expose people or structures to risks associated with wildland fires. Impacts would be Class II, significant but mitigable. FIRE-1(a) Fuel-Load Vegetation Management. Each applicant shall be required to prepare a fuel modification plan pursuant to the requirements of LACFD. The LACFD shall review and approve the plan prior to issuance of a building or grading permit. The fuel modification plan shall at a minimum include the following: • Vegetation clearance requirements around all new structures within a minimum 100 foot buffer, or greater, as determined by LACFD; • A landscaping plan using plants recommended for the Rancho Palos Verdes area and selected from the desirable plant list for setback, irrigated, or thinning zone; and Upon implementation of mitigation measures FIRE- 1(a) and FIRE-1(b), impacts related to fire hazards would be less than significant. Attachments 1-17 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-17 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation • A regularly scheduled brush clearance of vegetation on and adjacent to all applicable access roads, power lines, and structures. FIRE-1(b) Fire Protection Requirements. New, single-family residences and related accessory structures shall be designed to incorporate all fire protection requirements of the City’s most recently adopted Building Code, to the satisfaction of the Building Official. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HWQ-1 During construction of the proposed project, the soil surface would be subject to erosion and the downstream watershed, including the Pacific Ocean, could be subject to temporary sedimentation and discharges of various pollutants. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1, impacts relating to the potential for discharge of various pollutants, including sediment, would be Class II, significant but mitigable. HWQ-1 Construction pollution, sediment and erosion control. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or Building Permit, each applicant shall prepare a Construction Erosion Control and Water Quality Plan for the review and approval of the Building Official. The applicant shall be responsible for continuous and effective implementation of the plan during construction of each residence. The plan shall include Best Management Practices that may include, but not be limited to, the following: • Erosion Control. Eroded sediments from areas disturbed by construction and from stockpiles of soil shall be retained on site to minimize sediment transport from the site to streets, drainage facilities or adjacent properties via runoff, vehicle tracking or wind. Utilize erosion control techniques, such as soil stabilizers, covering soil during construction, wind blocking devices, cease grading during high winds, use of soil binders (watering graded soils should be avoided), filtration devices, and stabilizing ingress/egress points. Reduce fugitive dust to the maximum extent practicable. • Erosion from slopes and channels shall be controlled by implementing an effective combination of BMPs (as approved in Regional Board Resolution No. 99-03), such as the limiting of grading schedule during the wet season; inspecting graded areas during rain events; planting and maintenance of vegetation on slopes; Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1. Attachments 1-18 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-18 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation and covering erosion susceptible slopes. • Pollutant Detainment Methods. Protect downstream drainages from escaping pollutants by capturing materials carried in runoff and preventing transport from the site. Examples of detainment methods that retard movement of water and separate sediment and other contaminants are silt fences, hay bales, sand bags, berms, silt and debris basins. • Construction Materials Control. Construction related materials, wastes, spills or residues shall be retained on site to minimize transport from the site to streets, drainage facilities or adjoining properties by wind or runoff. Runoff from equipment and vehicle washing shall be contained at construction sites unless treated to remove sediment and pollutants. Non-Stormwater runoff from equipment and vehicle washing and any other activity shall be contained at the project site. • Recycling/Disposal. Maintain a clean site. This includes proper recycling of construction related materials and equipment fluids. • Cleanup and dispose of small construction wastes (i.e., dry concrete) appropriately. HWQ-2 Development that would be facilitated by the proposed ordinance revisions would incrementally increase the amount of impermeable surfaces in the project area, and potential new development would also generate various urban pollutants such as oil, herbicides and pesticides, which could adversely affect surface water quality. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-2, impacts related to surface water quality would be Class II, significant but mitigable. HWQ-2 NPDES Review. Any development proposal located within, adjacent to or draining into a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) and involving the creation of two thousand five hundred square feet or more (> 2,500 SF) of impervious surface shall require the review and approval by the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) consultant prior to building permit issuance. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-2.. HWQ-3 Potential buildout under the proposed ordinance revisions would incrementally increase the amount of impermeable surface within the project area, which would could affect the location and amount of infiltration. Based However, with adherence to Impacts would be less than significant, therefore mitigation beyond measures GEO-3 (a and b) and HWQ-4 is not requiredNone required. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-3 (a and b) and HWQ-4Less than significant without mitigation. Attachments 1-19 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-19 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation existing regulations related to drainage design and with implementation of mitigation measures GEO-3 (a and b) and HWQ-4, on the hydrologic and geologic conditions in the project area, impacts related to groundwater recharge would be Class III, less than significant but mitigable. HWQ-4 Potential buildout under the proposed ordinance revisions would incrementally increase the amount of onsite impermeable surface area, which could have the potential to may increase storm water flows and create localized flooding. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-3 (a and b) and Mitigation Measure HWQ-4, buildout under the ordinance revisions would result in a flow rate generally similar to existing conditions. Therefore, impacts related to storm water runoff would be Class II, significant but mitigable. HWQ-4 Flooding. Prior to issuance of any grading permit or building permit, the applicant for any individual construction project shall comply with the following, pursuant to the review and approval by the City Director of Public WorksBuilding Official: • A detailed Hydrology Study and Drainage Plan shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer for review and approval by the City. The study shall address impacts to the proposed building site, as well as upstream and downstream properties. The analysis shall include the SUSMP 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and Capital Storms to determine impacts. The analysis will follow the methodology outlined in the Los Angeles County Hydrology and Sedimentation Manual (latest edition), the Los Angeles County Low Impact Development Manual, and Los Angeles County Stormwater Best Management Practices Design and Maintenance Manual for preparation of the design calculations. Improvements will be based upon the policies and codes of the City. The drainage plan shall demonstrate that: • • Post-construction lot infiltration and runoff rates and volume shall be made equal to pre- construction conditions through use of appropriate low impact development principles such as, but not limited to, detaining peak flows and use of cisterns, bio- retention areas, green roofs and permeable hardscape. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-4 Attachments 1-20 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-20 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation • Illustrate that point (concentrated) flow on each of the properties is either normalized, attenuated adequately, or will reach an acceptable conveyance such as a storm drain, channel, roadway or natural drainage course. All runoff shall be directed to an acceptable conveyance and shall not be allowed to drain to localized sumps or catchment areas with no outlet. • Avoid changes to the character of the runoff at property lines. Changes in character include obstructing or diverting existing runoff entering the site, changing the depth and frequency of flooding, concentration of flow outletting onto adjacent properties or streets, and increasing the frequency or duration of runoff outletting onto adjacent properties or streets. • Minimize “Dry Weather” infiltration which could add to the total infiltration from the project. • Illustrate that point (concentrated) flow on each of the properties is either normalized, attenuated adequately, or will reach an acceptable conveyance such as a storm drain, channel, or natural drainage course. All runoff shall be directed to an acceptable conveyance and shall not be allowed to drain to localized sumps or catchment areas with no outlet. • Maintain existing drainage patterns and outlet at historical outlet points • Minimize changes to the character of the runoff at property lines. Changes in character include concentration of flow outletting onto adjacent properties or increasing the frequency or duration of runoff outletting onto adjacent properties • Reduce increases in runoff by utilizing appropriate and applicable low impact development principles • Provide onsite detention facilities or conveyance to acceptable off-lot conveyance devices Attachments 1-21 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-21 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation • Minimize “Dry Weather” runoff which could add to the total infiltration from the project HWQ-5 Adoption of the proposed ordinance revisions would allow for the construction of up to 47 single- family homes within the project area. Several of the single-family homes could be constructed in an area in which there is a potential for flood hazards to exist. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-5, flooding impacts would be Class II, significant but mitigable. HWQ-5 Standards of Construction in a Flood Zone D Area. Prior to issuance of any grading permit or building permit, the applicant for any construction project located in an area designated as Zone D by FEMA shall comply with the following, pursuant to Section 15.42.120 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. Plans shall be reviewed and approved accordingly by the City Building Official: • All new construction shall be designed to be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy • All new construction shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage • All new construction shall be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage • All new construction shall be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-5 NOISE N-1 Short-term project construction would intermittently generate high noise levels on and adjacent to the site. This would be a Class II, significant but mitigable impact. N-1 Construction Schedule. Permitted hours and days of construction activity are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code without a special construction permit. Compliance with this mitigation measure would reduce construction noise impacts of the proposed project to a less than significant level. Attachments 1-22 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-22 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation N-2 Construction facilitated by the proposed ordinance revisions could generate intermittent levels of groundborne vibration affecting residences and other buildings near the project site. However, these impacts are temporary in nature and would not exceed existing thresholds. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. None required. Less than significant without mitigation. N-3 Traffic generated by the potential development of up to 47 new residences in Zone 2 would incrementally increase noise levels on area roadways. However, the increase in noise would not exceed significance thresholds and would therefore be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant without mitigation. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION T-1 The potential increase in vehicles traveling on the surrounding roadway network from buildout under the proposed ordinance revisions would not result in significant impacts at any of the study area intersections under existing plus project conditions. However, the increase in vehicle trips under cumulative conditions would result in significant impacts at three of the study area intersections. Mitigation Measure T-1(a) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard/Via Rivera. However, mitigation measures T-1 b through c were found to be infeasible and would not reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level at Forrestal Drive/Palos Verdes Drive South and Seahill Drive- Tramonto Drive/Palos Verdes Drive South. Impacts at these two intersections would therefore be Class I, significant and unavoidable. T-1(a) Hawthorne Boulevard/Via Rivera. The individual project applicants shall provide a proportionate fair share contribution to the City to restripe the southbound approach of Via Rivera to provide two lanes (a 10-foot wide single left-turn lane and a 12-foot wide optional through-right combination lane) and/or a traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Via Rivera in order to improve overall operations and assignment of motorist right-of-way. T-1(b) Seahill Drive-Tramonto Drive/Palos Verdes Drive South. The individual project applicants shall provide a proportionate fair-share contribution towards the modification of the intersection to provide an acceleration lane to better facilitate the northbound left-turn movement (from Seahill Drive) onto westbound Palos Verdes Drive South. (Note that the City can only require a fair share payment; therefore, implementation of the improvements required in this Mitigation Measure cannot be guaranteed. Impacts at this intersection would be significant and unavoidable). T-1(c) Forrestal Drive/Palos Verdes Drive South. A traffic signal shall be installed at this intersection in order to improve overall operations and Mitigation Measure T-1(a) would reduce the potentially significant project-related impact to the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard/Via Rivera to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure T-1(b)) would require the applicant to provide a proportionate fair-share contribution towards the modification of the intersection to provide an acceleration lane to better facilitate the northbound left-turn movement (from Seahill Drive) onto westbound Palos Verdes Drive South. However, since the fair share contribution to this mitigation measure would not allow the City to fully implement the measure absent of other funding resources, the mitigation was conservatively deemed infeasible and no feasible mitigation measures were identified that would mitigate project-related impacts at this location. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Attachments 1-23 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-23 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation assignment of motorist right-of-way. (Note that impacts at this intersection have been assumed to be significant and unavoidable. Please see discussion under Significance After Mitigation for further explanation.) Mitigation Measure T-1(c) would require a traffic signal to be installed at this intersection. Although installation of the signal may be technically feasible, there may be other policy reasons for finding the traffic signal inappropriate and infeasible at this time. If the City were to approve signalization of the intersection, the impact would be reduced to less than significant. If, however, the City determines that signalization is not feasible, no other feasible mitigation measures were identified that would mitigate project- related impacts at this location. Therefore, assuming that the City does not authorize signalization of the intersection, the project’s impact at this intersection would be significant and unavoidable. T-2 The proposed project would increase traffic levels along roadways in the vicinity of the project site. However, the projected increases are below City-adopted thresholds at both studied street segments. Therefore, impacts to these two street segments would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant without mitigation. T-3 Based on Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) criteria, impacts to CMP identified freeway monitoring segments and arterial intersections as a result of buildout under the proposed project would be Class III, less than significant. None required. Less than significant without mitigation. T-4 Access to the project site during construction activity and during the operational phase of the project would be provided via Narcissa Drive and Peppertree Drive. Although there would be an increase of traffic during construction activity, construction traffic would not result in any significant impacts. In addition, emergency access during None required. Less than significant without mitigation. Attachments 1-24 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-24 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation both construction and operational phases would be adequate to serve the Portuguese Bend community. Therefore, impacts relating to site access and circulation would be Class III, less than significant. T-5 Development facilitated by the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Impacts relating to alternative transportation would be less than significant. None required. Less than significant without mitigation. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS U-1 Wastewater conveyance and treatment systems are adequate to serve the potential for up to 47 new residences to be built in the project area. However, individual new residences that could be constructed under the proposed ordinance revisions would require the extension of wastewater conveyance facilities. This impact would be Class II, significant but mitigable. U-1 Holding Tank System. If the director of Public Works determines that the sanitary sewer system cannot accommodate a new connection at the time of building permit issuance, the project shall be connected to a City approved holding tank system until such time as the sanitary sewer system can accommodate the project. In such cases, once the sanitary sewer system becomes available to serve the project, as determined by the Director of Public Works, the holding tank system shall be removed, and the project shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system. U-2 1 Additional Plumbing. If the project involves additional plumbing fixtures, or additions of habitable space which exceed 200 square feet, or could be used as a new bedroom, bathroom, laundry room or kitchen, and if the lot or parcel is not served by a sanitary sewer system, septic systems shall be replaced with approved holding tank systems in which to dispose of on-site waste water. The capacity of the required holding tank system shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Building Official. For the purposes of this mitigation measure, the addition of a sink to an existing bathroom, kitchen or laundry room shall not be construed to be an additional plumbing fixture. For those projects which involve additions of less than 200 hundred square feet in total area and which are not to be used as a new bedroom, bathroom, laundry room or kitchen, the applicant shall submit for Less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures U-1 through U-54. Attachments 1-25 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-25 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation recordation a covenant specifically agreeing that the addition of the habitable space will not be used for those purposes. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director for recordation prior to the issuance of a building permit. For lots or parcels which are to be served by a sanitary sewer system on or after July 6, 2000, additional plumbing fixtures may be permitted and the requirement for a holding tank may be waived, provided that the lot or parcel is to be connected to the sanitary sewer system. If a sanitary sewer system is approved and/or under construction but is not yet operational at the time that a project requiring a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved, the requirement for a holding tank may be waived, provided that the lot or parcel is required to be connected to the sanitary sewer system pursuant to Section 15.20.110 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, or by an agreement or condition of project approval. U-3 2 Participation in Future Sewer and/or Storm Drain Assessment District. If the lot or parcel is not served by a sanitary sewer system, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to support and participate in existing or future sewer and/or storm drain assessment districts and any other geological and geotechnical hazard abatement measures required by the City. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. U-4 3 Sewer and Storm Drain Easement. If the lot or parcel is not served by a sanitary sewer system, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the City a sewer and storm drain easement on the subject property, as well as any other easement required by the City to mitigate landslide conditions. Such convenant shall be submitted to the Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Attachments 1-26 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Executive Summary City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-26 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation U-5 4 Inspection of Sewer Lateral. If the lot or parcel is served by a sanitary sewer system, the sewer lateral that served the applicant’s property shall be inspected to verifty that there are no cracks, breaks or leaks and, if such deficiencies are present, the sewer lateral shall be repaired or reconstructed to eliminate them, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project that is being approved pursuant to the issuance of a moratorium exception permit. Attachments 1-27 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED SINCE THE CLOSING OF THE DRAFT EIR COMMENT PERIOD Attachments 1-28 Jeremy Davies OBE 36 Cinnamon Lane Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275 Email: jdavies@kuboaa.com April 29, 2014 Mr Eduardo Schonborn Planning Division, Community Development Department, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Mr Schonborn, FEIR FOR ZONE 2 LANDSLIDE PROPOSED MORATORIUM ORDINANCE REVISIONS I am taking the liberty of sending this letter to the Mayor and Council Members. We hope they can fully appreciate and understand the extent and depth of our Community’s concerns before considering expanding development in Zone 2. We have resided at the above address for over 22 years. Upper Cinnamon Lane is a short cul de sac and will have 30% or 14 of the proposed new 47 residences constructed immediately adjacent to the existing four homes. I summarize below topics that have not been addressed adequately in the FEIR or where the FEIR is deficient or inaccurate and/or does not comply with CEQA. These topics warrant careful consideration by the City Council before making their final decision. Quotes from the DEIR or FEIR are in italics and emphasis has been indicated by bold type in the quotes. Additional support to the concerns addressed in this letter are attached as a separate document. 1) Access Roadways and Pavement Integrity The FEIR makes unsubstantiated assumptions that the roadways, pavement integrity and drainage systems (as they use the roadway system) were engineered as though they were Attachments 1-29 public roads. This leads the reader to false conclusions. CEQA Section 15384 –Substantial Evidence requires that enough relevant information is provided to support a conclusion. Section 8 Comments and Responses Page 10 of the FEIR states “It is important to note that the roadway system was originally engineered for full development and build out of the residential tract and as such the street(s) were designed to accommodate the envisioned loading, including construction vehicles associated with the construction of the envisioned build out as originally reviewed and approved by the County of Los Angeles”. On investigation this turns out to be pure conjecture as the City has no record of studies, reports etc. (confirmed to me in writing on April 4, 2014 by the City). The City’s response on April 4, 2014 to my question about the original permit for development is “I researched our archives regarding the original approvals/documentation from LA County, but could not locate any studies, reports, etc”. The City goes on to state that “it is reasonable to conclude that the subdivision was approved with improvements and infrastructure designed to the standards in place at the time to handle build out of the tract”. This unsubstantiated answer has been used to respond to many other commenters who also expressed concern about the road infrastructure. For the City to presume “reasonableness” at that time when only a few years later the Portuguese Bend landslide was reactivated due to County incompetence would appear inappropriate. This landslide resulted in the loss of 134 homes and still impacts others in our Community. Furthermore, the assumptions made in referring to a LA County review and approval predates the reactivation of the Portuguese Bend and the Abalone Cove landslides. So even if a study did exist it is irrelevant since the County could not have foreseen the future impacts of the landslides and the destabilization of the Zones 2,5 and 6. Without a detailed in depth infrastructural study of the roadway system that provides access to Zone 2, the City will be placing its reliance on approving the project as it applies to access road and pavement conditions, the impact of storm runoff on the road system and related safety issues based on a document that makes an assumption which has no supporting evidence. “CEQA requires specific performance standards that must be met and ways to meet those standards “(Page 8-86 of the Comments and Responses section). The City has discretionary authority over the proposed project (Page 2-12). If this infrastructural study is not carried out and the City continues to depend on unsubstantiated assumptions and conjectures, as explained above, and there is an accident or major failure of the road system resulting in harm to human life, the City, Council members and the consultants could be at best considered irresponsible for not carrying out this study, and at worst, grossly negligent. The City and Council members should carefully consider their fiduciary responsibility in this regard. 2) Hydrology Attachments 1-30 a) The FEIR contains conflicting statements regarding storm water runoff impacts. The FEIR admits that Altamira Canyon is a problem that should be addressed but claims infeasibility before full project build out without full discussion as to why and what mitigation measures could be taken. CEQA Sections 15141 and 15384 -Substantial Evidence and Standards for an EIR require information to be contained in the FEIR and enough information to support the conclusions. The FEIR contains several conflicting statements regarding the impacts of storm run off, for example: “Runoff rates, runoff volumes and infiltration would remain generally the same as under existing conditions with adherence to mitigation measures in HWQ-4”. “Localized flood effects may occur on an individual lot basis”. “Increases in runoff from an individual lot would range from approximately 9.8% to 15.1%” (Page 4.8-15). “The proposed ordinance revisions would not significantly increase lot runoff or contribute significantly to the drainage system after mitigation” (Page 8-127). “Regardless of the localized flooding that may occur under existing conditions, if no net change occurs due to the development of the 47 lots,…”(Page 8-3). Several of the above statements are at variance with the assertion that there will be” no increase in runoff rates and volumes to Altamira Canyon”(Page 8-5). By permitting development above Zone 2 e.g. Island View, Del Cerro and Valley View etc., the City has already added to the instability of the land in Zones 5,6 and 2 by creating conditions for additional infiltration from runoff from these developments into Altamira Canyon. The FEIR now denies the need for this situation to be fixed before further compounding the infiltration problem by approving further development. The need to resolve the Altamira Canyon issue before any additional development is well documented in City capital plans, the Horan settlement, public statements by Council members and a City workshop on landslides held in July 2012. All ignored or considered infeasible in the FEIR. It should be noted that Page 8-79 acknowledges that mitigation at Altamira Canyon was discussed by the consultants with the City but no further explanation is given as to the nature of the discussions and conclusions and their rationale. “While it may be desirable to resolve the site flooding and erosion in Altamira Canyon and other natural drainage courses, it is an existing condition affecting the larger area that would be addressed separately from these proposed ordinance revisions” (Page 4.8-17). How is the City to address this issue raised in the FEIR but not explained? The argument that it is infeasible from an economic perspective to line Altamira Canyon no longer is valid given the money being spent on remediation measures adopted in the case of San Ramon Canyon ($17.8 million as reported in the Daily Breeze April 2013). Furthermore, on February 18, 2014 alternative phased solutions to start to remedy the Altamira Canyon situation were proposed to the City Council which are not discussed in the FEIR. Attachments 1-31 City d eliberations on this issue should consider recent slope failures and other major projects dealing with storm water conditions in the City and adjacent regions and their implications e.g. Paseo Del Mar in San Pedro, Trump Golf Course, the San Ramon project and Bluff Cove, PVE. In addition, national disasters involving slide failures such as Oso, Washington, Jackson, Wyoming and Laguna Niguel, draw additional attention to poor City development standards being adopted, sometimes under economic pressures, ultimate loss of life, property damage and liabilities resulting from these poor decisions. As ACLAD states “The reactivation of the landslides in the Portuguese Bend area are all related to human activities that led to an increase in groundwater” (ACLAD 2012). The City and Council members personally have a fiduciary responsibility to deal with this matter before considering any additional development or alternatively to deny the project. b) The FEIR uses LA County averages for its calculations for runoff from new construction rather than project specific conditions and makes assumptions on preconstruction conditions that do not reflect actual conditions. This conflicts with CEQA 15151 which requires a sufficient degree of analysis to support a conclusion. “Post-construction lot infiltration and runoff rates and volume shall be made equal to pre- construction conditions through use of appropriate low impact development principles….” (GEO-3(a)-Page ES-14). Pre-construction conditions are neither quantified nor spelled out in the FEIR. The calculations which the consultants have used are not reflective of local conditions in Zone 2 since they use County averages and soil conditions in a non-slide situation which are irrelevant to the project conditions (see HWQ-4 Page ES-19). The likelihood of new developments’ storm water runoff creating damage to adjacent properties may constitute both a private and public nuisance. In 22 years of living in Zone 2 we have not experienced flooding from the land above us in a pre- construction stage. The combination of trees, yucca plants, grasses and absorbent soil conditions (the nature of the landslide soil is capable of absorbing significant storm water before any runoff occurs) has protected us from flooding. By increasing the impervious surface area on the lots above us (steep slopes) by 38% it will not be possible to “effect post-construction lot infiltration and runoff rates and volume equal to pre-construction condition”. This comment is based on 22 years of experience of actual conditions and not on hypothetical calculations using County averages (as opposed to using actual conditions in Zone 2). For example, runoff rates for 37 Cinnamon Lane in a 50 year storm rise to approximately 1400 gallons per minute. With a 1600 gallon holding tank capacity it is not logical that serious flooding conditions and potential damage to the properties below this site can be avoided (source Attachments 1-32 are the planning documents held by the City). Therefore the conclusion that “runoff from all buildings and runoff areas not infiltrated or retained on site to match existing conditions shall be collected and directed to the street or to an approved drainage course as approved by the City” (Page ES-14) is highly suspect. 3) Hydrology - Hold Harmless Agreement The mitigation does not clarify if the hold harmless letter applies to damages suffered by residents outside the project area. The City is potentially opening itself up to a future Horan type litigation. The City is to require a Hold Harmless Agreement to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claims or damages resulting from the requested project prior to issuance of a building permit. This is a distinct inequality of treatment in the event that the individual home owner and the PB Homeowners Association is also potentially damaged by flooding and other consequences etc. resulting from this City authorized and imposed project, if approved. It is noted that the City is required to approve the plan that demonstrates that the individual’s lot’s drainage does not impact the surrounding properties (Page 8-159). The City should require indemnification for homeowners and the PBCA for damages to existing homeowners and the PBCA as part of their indemnification letter. 4) Traffic and Circulation-Emergency Evacuation a) The FEIR is deficient in that it ignores the possibility of fire closing one of the two access and egress roads and the estimated evacuation times used in the FEIR are unrealistic. CEQA Section 15384 in determining “substantial evidence” requires providing enough relevant information to support a conclusion. Section 4.10 page 4.10-26 concludes that the design of the roadway system is adequate for emergency evacuation purposes. This is predicated on both Peppertree and Narcissi being open and available in the event of a fire. What the FEIR does not consider is if a fire starts at the lower part of Narcissa thus causing that street to be impassable. The City needs to restudy this eventuality and factor it into the FEIR calculations. The FEIR also “concludes that additional width is available among many portions of the roadways” (Page 4.10-25). This conclusion overlooks the fact that any additional width for streets cannot be obtained without a seizure of homeowners’ property or obtainment of an easement. The estimated clearance times contained on page 8-14 are totally unrealistic. On April 21 it took me 3 minutes to reach the Narcissa gate from my home and 3 and ½ minutes to reach the Peppertree gate. I drove at the posted speed and stopped at all stop signs. There were no other vehicles on the streets at the time, no equestrian evacuation, no construction vehicle evacuation Attachments 1-33 no other residence evacuation, no fire vehicles on the streets and it assumed that both streets were available for evacuation. Furthermore the statement on Page 8-14 that “it has been subsequently learned that the horse owners and horse boarders would likely shelter their horses in place and rely on sprinklers” only applies to Portuguese Bend club members and not to a large number of other horse owners who are not within the club but are within and adjacent to the project . b) The FEIR is deficient in that it does not address fire vehicle and team access to land above Upper Cinnamon Lane after the full build out. This appears to be a physical change resulting in a significant effect requiring mitigation under CEQA Section 15382. There is a lack of sufficient analysis under CEQA Section 15131. Once full build out of the project is completed there is no access to land above Upper Cinnamon Lane, an area which has experienced previous brush fires. 5) Environmental Setting-Cumulative Projects Setting Recent drillings have taken place in 2014 on two potential property developments which questions the FEIR conclusion that no projects are known that can be considered proposed. The FEIR considers no projects are known that can be considered planned, apart from Downhill, for inclusion in the cumulative development setting (Page 8-51). The Response to several commenters regarding the impact of the cumulative development setting excludes any potential impact from the “Point View” or the “Beanfield” on the basis that these are speculative future projects. Yet there have been drillings taking place in early 2014 on both sites. It is unlikely that the owners would incur these costs if they did not plan to develop their properties. This raises the question of incompleteness of the FEIR and additional analysis of the impacts of these projects being required to be included in the FEIR. 6) CEQA requires all comments received during the circulation of the DEIR to be fully answered. This has not been done in all cases and in some cases answers have depended upon unsubstantiated evidence as described above. In addition to the topics contained in items 1-5 above, the following questions raised in my letter of November 15, 2012 are either not answered or are incomplete in their content or are referred back to the City: No response to question # 11 regarding drainage into Zones 5 and 6. Response to question # 14 explaining that more restrictive construction times are contained in the PBCA architectural standards and as such should also be included in the mitigation measures is Attachments 1-34 merely “noted” (reference to other PBCA standards are referred to in the FEIR e.g. ranch house style homes). The response to question #25 which refers to the City workshop is that no response can be given since no specifics have been provided. I assumed that the consultants had access to the workshop discussions, slides and conclusions and therefore already had specifics to which they could respond. Response to my concern that a ban on constructors’ employees from smoking be included in mitigation measures (question #28) is referred back to the City for their consideration. As a high fire hazard area it should not be so difficult to include such a ban since also it is posted at the gates. Question #30 which reads “Are all Monks plaintiff plans that have been approved or are in the approval process required to comply with all the mitigation measures that will be in the FEIR in accordance with CEQA? If not which measures specifically are excluded? The response does not address this question. Sincerely, Jeremy Davies OBE Cc Mayor Jerry.Duhovic@rpv.com Mayor Pro Tem Jim.Knight@rpv.com Councilwoman Susan.Brooks@rpv.com Councilman Brian.Campbell@rpv.com Councilman Anthony.Misetich@rpv.com Attachments 1-35 FEIR DETAILED ADDITIONAL SUPPORT-JEREMY DAVIES LETTER TO MR EDUARDO SCHONBORN –APRIL 29, 2014 References are to the items in the separate letter for the same date. 1) Access Roadways and Pavement Integrity My letter to you of November 15, 2012 item #3 refers to Appendix D of the DEIR which states “It should be plainly understood that because of the inherent potential for instability within adjacent landslides and the fact that Zone 2 is atop a landslide, that should additional significant movement occur in adjacent areas, it is our opinion that the loss of support currently provided from the Abalone Cove and Portuguese Bend Landslides could result in significant structural damage within Zone 2.” I added “and Zones 5 and 6” (FEIR Pages 8-56-8-58). Within the context of the access roads and pavement integrity, I raised questions regarding the access road infrastructure for Zone 2 potential development. These access roads transit Zones 5 and 6 and the impact of large and heavy construction vehicles for which the roads were not designed and the potential impact on human life and safety requires further study. I requested an explanation and justification why the DEIR does not contain a detailed analysis of load bearing pressures on these two delicate road systems, potential impacts on slope stability, impacts on homes adjacent to the two roads and identifying any mitigation measures that are needed. The Response (Page 8-66) of the consultants’ (and presumably of the City) in the FEIR is to refer me to Section 8.1c Topical Response: Traffic and Circulation “Access Roadways and Pavement Integrity” which uses unsubstantiated evidence (see letter attached). There is no evidence provided by the City or consultants to support their assumptions regarding the integrity of the current road system to bear safely the construction traffic for the build out that would be imposed on the PBCA if additional building permits are issued. In addition, the consultants confirm that “the performance of all possible roads and slopes can not be assessed here” (Page 8-8). But they have already assumed that “the roadway system was originally engineered for full development and build out of the residential tract and as such the street(s) were designed to accommodate the envisioned loading, including construction vehicles associated with the construction of the envisioned build out as originally reviewed and approved by the County of Los Angeles” for which they have no evidence. These are conflicting statements. The consultants also state that “Surficial slope stability may be a potential hazard to some of the proposed home sites within the project area” (Page 4.5-12). Attachments 1-36 “The material near the toe of the landslide has a distinctly different and chaotic structure with very low strength” (Page 4.5-3) which reinforces the need for an in depth assessment of the access roadways leading to Zone 2. Therefore I repeat my request that an in depth infrastructural study be carried out on the road system including drainage based on current standards and best City practices for safety. Such study must be specific to the present road and underlying soil and slide conditions of Zones 2,5 and 6 for the following additional reasons: Many of the homes constructed in the early years of development (and before the reactivated landslides took place) were no more that 1,200 square feet and many had only one bedroom. This compares with the average size of new permits under the Monks settlement of 3,500-4,000 square feet plus 600 square feet for garages. Construction truck sizes and loads were much smaller and building materials lighter when the original development was started in the late 1940s. The study must contain loading factor conclusions not based on average soils and compaction standards but specific to the road, soil and slide conditions in Zones 2, 5 and 6. It should be noted that dewatering wells in Zone 5 adjacent to Narcissi have sheared (WW2 several times since the 1980s with continued land movement) indicating the danger to that road as an access for heavy construction traffic. This should be factored into the study as should additional storm water run off volume from new construction that runs into land adjacent to the road access systems. “The uncertainty with regards to landslide control has been abated”(Page 4.5-4). This contradicts conclusions of ACLAD. 2) Hydrology The Palos Verdes General Plan states “prohibit activities that --- increase canyon wall erosion” (section 4.8 Page 4.8-6) and” stringently regulate…natural drainage …in new development uses affecting existing or potential slide areas”(Page 4.8-7). The FEIR contains several conflicting statements (in addition to those contained in the accompanying letter) regarding storm run off and drainage and related information and ignores totally or in part the two areas above contained in the General Plan: “Runoff to match existing conditions” (ES-14) “Avoid changes to the character of the runoff at property lines including increasing the concentration of flow out letting onto adjacent properties (HWQ-4 Page ES-20) “By maintaining post-development drainage conditions at the same level as existing conditions, no increase in runoff rates and volumes to Altamira Canyon would occur” (Page 8-5). Attachments 1-37 “A detailed hydrological analysis be prepared for each individual lot demonstrating that no net increase in runoff rates and volumes leaving the site occurs, no increase in total infiltration occurs, and no diversion of flows occurs” (Page 8-5). ” Any new development would maintain, and would not exacerbate, the existing runoff and infiltration conditions” (Page 4.8-11 HWQ-3). “Avoid changes to the character of the runoff at property lines”. “Changes in character include …changing the depth and frequency of flooding, concentration of flow out letting onto adjacent properties or streets”(Page 4.8-18) “Post development peak discharges will not substantially increase peak flood flows or increase flooding”(Page 4.8-20) “Roof runoff from all buildings and structures on the site shall be contained and directed to the streets or an approved drainage course” (Page 4.5-14). However the FEIR is relying on an “approved” drainage course for which there are no records-see item 1 above. Many commenters on the DEIR who have lived in the community for many years based on facts and observations indicated that the drainage system is inadequate. The FEIR (Page 4.8-1) concludes that “the existing drainage system was designed for the entire Portuguese Development, including the 47 undeveloped lots”. As explained in item 1) above the consultants and City are unable to provide evidence of such drainage design. Ground water “is also the only factor that can be reasonably manipulated to minimize the slide movement for all areas within the Ancient Portuguese Bend Landslide (APBL) complex.” “Control of groundwater is the only effective remediation for landslide instability, and that large- scale failure is otherwise possible outside of the landslides. The commenter is correct” (Response 5.1 Page 8-39). Another reason for Altamira Canyon to be resolved. 4) Traffic and Circulation-Emergency Evacuation The FEIR states “the LLG analysis recommends that the City consider posting these access roads with “no parking-Fire Lane signs” (Page 4.10-26). It would appear that the consultants did not visit the project site since such signs are posted and have been for many years. Attachments 1-38 Zone 2 FEIR 4-28 TO: City Council FROM: Jim Knight, as a private citizen REGARDING: Zone 2 FEIR and proposed development code changes DATE: April 28, 2014 Mayor and Council Members, My comments on the FEIR below are being presented to you as a private citizen and not as Mayor Pro Tem. My recommendation is to not certify this FEIR. The FEIR contains unverifiable assumptions, missing information, failure to acknowledge or rely on substantial evidence to support conclusions as well as a lack of disclosure and analysis. This is a fundamental breach of CEQA’s primary goal of disclosure in order to provide this Council and this community’s right to assess the impact of the addition of the development of the 47 lots in the project area as well as impacts to the adjacent Zone 5 area. Please don’t interpret this as an “anti-development” letter. My concerns are about liability for the city and proper CEQA process. I first will provide you with an introductory short list of my concerns followed by a more complete discussion of those concerns where I will quote sections of the FEIR followed by my comments in italics. Summary of concerns on the FEIR: 1) This FEIR is using mitigation based upon a geological standard set forth by 3 Appellate Judges who admit they do not know much about geology and is contradictory to an industry standard of factor of safety used by all municipalities. 2) This FEIR has failed to disclose a landslide mass that could have significant impacts due to this project. 3) The FEIR failed to disclose the impact of the additional runoff from the project entering Altamira Cyn. and infiltrating into a series of fissures of which previous geological studies indicate could potentially significantly impact the stability of Zone 5 as well as Zone 2. 4) The FEIR focuses on sewer hookup as mitigations and does not provide adequate mitigation as to the previous geologist’s opinion that the primary source of land instability is from the accumulative quantity of rainfall. 5) The FEIR does not offer any analysis nor mitigation for the fact that the project and adjoining areas are within a Seismic Hazard Zone for earthquake induced landslides. Attachments 1-39 6) Hydrologic studies used boiler plate soil assumptions resulting in erroneous conclusions despite site specific soil core samples as well as geologic reports being available for analysis. 7) The hydrology methodology will not put any analysis into the project’s drainage impact upon an already deficient Altamira Cyn. and Zone 5 with the unjustifiable reason that it is in a “larger area” beyond the project description. 8) The conclusion that the current storm drain system was adequately designed to handle development of all 47 lots within the project description is unsubstantiated and is contrary to evidence presented to this FEIR. 9) The FEIR did not take into consideration the accumulative hydrological impact of several development tracts approved by the City after the project area’s storm drain was in place. 10) The lack of Hydrological analysis to the adjacent Zone 5 does not address the potential significant impact of impairment of emergency access through some streets during storms. 11) Mitigations for significant impacts are described to occur in the future in a segmented fashion which avoids full analysis of accumulative impacts of this project. Acronyms used in this comment letter: ACL-Abalone Cove Landslide; the boundaries of Zone 5. The ACL is the predominate supporting land mass for the west side of Zone 2. PBL-Portuguese Bend Landslide; the eastside of the Portuguese Bend community and the Portuguese Bend Preserve. The PBL is the predominate supporting land mass for the east side of Zone 2. APBL-Ancient Portuguese Bend Landslide; the boundary of the larger landslide complex which includes all zones and the Portuguese Bend Preserve. Appendix D Geotechnical Study-Scope of project Please note that this geology report prepared more than 3 years ago and was not updated at a later date as was the Hydrology report. The opening introductory statement is: “Our work was performed to determine the potential geotechnical/geologic impacts to Zone 2 and the surrounding area from development of all 47 undeveloped lots.” Notice that the geologist’s scope of study is to include geological impacts to both Zone 2 and the surrounding area. But the detail of the FEIR, as I will point out below, clearly only focuses on Attachments 1-40 impacts to the lots in Zone 2 and avoids any analysis of impacts of project drainage to the contiguous ACL and Zone 5. Further explanation of comments 1-11 above: 1) Abandoning a geological industry standard for safety FEIR: “Though significant in terms of the potential for cracking and separations to structures, flatwork and other block or concrete structures, the movement within the ACL is slow over enough time that it is not considered by most geologists as a hazard to life and limb as long as the abatement activities (ground water dewatering and monitoring) within the ACL continue.” (Emphasis added) Herein is a recommendation for the city to fundamentally change its geologic standards. The industry geologic standard is a factor of safety of 1.5 (to simplify, the downhill support land is 1.5 times the stability of the uphill driving force land). This FEIR has bypassed this industry standard and substituted the MONKS court case standard, which allows for structural damage as long as there is no loss of “life or limb”. The potential significant impacts of this fundamental change in industry standard factor of safety have not been fully disclosed. FEIR: P.14-15 3.10 Slope Stability Analysis for Zone 2 Area “Based on our review and experiences we are of the position that the site slope stability is likely somewhere higher than 1.0, but less than 1.5. This is the position taken by Cotton Shires (2001).” First, the Cotton Shires report commissioned by the City actually concluded that the factor of safety was unknown. Second, the geologist here admits that the stability of Zone 2 is less than 1.5 which means this FEIR is recommending you as a City ignore the industry standard of a factor of safety of 1.5 and substitute the MONKS standard of nuisance for geologic review of entitlements. The impact of changing this geological standard to Land Use and Planning was not analyzed by this FEIR. CEQA requires that a fundamental question be answered: Would the project conflict with any applicable land use policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The FEIR does not discuss why other RS2 zoned properties within the City boundaries would not be required to be treated equally with this new MONKS geologic standard. And, since there is no justification for having different geologic standards of one zone over another, this MONKS standard could have serious repercussions to ALL zoning classifications. Imagine if another RS-2 property owner, maybe a neighbor of yours, wanted to tear down their house and excavate for a new house with a basement. With this MONKS case standard, the city would allow the grading so long as it did not threaten life or limb despite the fact it might cause a house next door to have foundation problems. Attachments 1-41 The FEIR does not address this wide ranging and possibly very significant Land Use consequence of using the MONKS geological standard instead of keeping its current widely accepted industry geological standard. 2) Failure to disclose a landslide mass influenced by this project The geologic dynamics of a land mass moving between Portuguese Point and Inspiration point (PVDS ski jump area) has not been mentioned in this FEIR. Land movement in this area is influenced by both shoreline erosion and water draining down fissures into the subsurface in Altamira Cyn. which, with the addition of the runoff of this project, could potentially significantly impact not only PVDS but residents on Peppertree Dr. 3) FEIR only addresses impacts to Zone 2 and not Zone 5 FEIR: “…it should be plainly understood that because of the inherent potential for instability within adjacent landslides and the fact that Zone 2 is atop a landslide, that should additional significant movement occur in adjacent areas, it is our opinion the loss of support currently provided from the Abalone Cove and Portuguese Bend Landslides could result in significant structural damage within Zone 2.” First, this statement acknowledges that the adjacent ACL is critical to the support of Zone 2. Second, this impact analysis only considers impacts to Zone 2 property owners and not Zone 5 property owners. Evidence presented to this FEIR clearly shows that storm water runoff draining into Alatamira Cyn. infuses into the subsurface of the ACL and significantly contributes more to the land instability of Zone 5 than Zone 2. Even before this Zone 2 proposed change, you have seen video of storm runoff affecting loss of property by Dan and Vicki Pinham. One of the City’s Founders, Betty Strauss, lives above Altamira Cyn. and is already experiencing some cracks in her home foundation. Additional water in Altamira Cyn. from the project’s hardscape runoff will only exacerbate these resident’s situation and is not adequately addressed in this FEIR. The city gave credence to San Ramon canyon eroding away support for PVDE. Why not the same credence to residents that are experiencing the same phenomena above Altamira Cyn.? FEIR: “…historical landsliding of the PBL and ACL indicate that mass movements still occur in the area today. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that landsliding occurs nearly continuously, at least in geologic terms, throughout the APBL complex and that landsliding is a very real potential that will continue into the future.” The APBL complex includes all Zones, including Zone 2 and 5. The City cannot do much about existing homes, but why would a City give additional entitlements for habitable structures in an area that has a “very real potential” for future landsliding? Please read the warnings from geologists before the tragic land failure in Oso, Washington and Jackson, Wyoming. Attachments 1-42 A house breaks apart as a slow-moving landslide in Jackson, Wyo. Friday, April 18. 2014 FEIR: p. 11 3.6 Surface Water “Based on our review of site studies for individual lots, typical lot drainage recommendations is to direct run-off toward the streets through controlled mechanisms such as roof gutters and down spouts. Because of the expansive soils in Zone 2, surface water runoff should be directed away from planned structures to reduce cracking that may occur to foundations and flatwork.” Again, the mitigation measure is only to get the rainfall to the street storm drain system so that is does not impact the Zone 2 structures with no consideration to impacts of this same runoff to the adjacent Zone 5 residents. One of the mitigations is for the installation of roof rain barrel, but the FEIR does not address the capacity of that barrel. First, the size is inadequate for a series of heavy storms and second, the barrel only controls flow rate, not quantity of accumulative hardscape runoff from the project into an already deficient storm drain system. FEIR: “Further, because of the underlying geologic conditions beneath the Zone 2 and adjacent areas, it is in the community’s best interest to keep ground water low and under control.” The FEIR provides no mitigation as to how to “keep ground water low and under control”. If anything, this project exacerbates an already deficient storm drain system adding accumulative water into fissures that feed subsurface instability. FEIR: “…storm water run-off should not be allowed to percolate into the ground in the Zone 2 area through the adoption of common BMP practices.” Attachments 1-43 Again, only Zone 2 considered. What common BMP practices is being recommended here? The FEIR fails to provide any common BMPs that would apply to mitigate the hydrological impacts to the Zone 5 residents. “…report by Robert Stone and Associates (1979)…recommended against further development in Zone 2 until slide movement was stopped within the ACL, the water table was lowered, and surface drainage was improved. …all but the slightest movement has ceased on the adjacent ACL… and the uncertainty with regard to landslide control has been abated. “ (Emphasis added) This FEIR ignores this geologist’s recommendations from the 1979 report commissioned by the City stating that “No development in Zone 2” is to occur until the identified mitigations have taken place. 4) The FEIR focuses on sewer hookup for mitigations and ignores geologist’s opinion that the primary source of land instability is from rainfall. FEIR : p.10 3.5 Groundwater “The data and graphs prepared by Ehlig and Bean indicate a strong positive correlation between ground water levels in the slide mass and the rate of movement…The current sources of ground water are primarily rainfall.” The statement that “current sources of ground water are primarily rainfall “ is accurate. But what this statement is also telling you is that having Zone 2 lots hooked up to the sewer system as mitigation is insignificant when compared to the impacts of rainwater to the storm drain system and land stability. Currently all homes in Zone 2 and Zone 5 are hooked up to a sanitary sewer system and the GPS data of land movement has not change since. This is not disclosed in this FEIR. The FEIR fails to acknowledge that the data from the Abalone Cove shoreline GPS (near the toe) shows a significantly larger movement than uphill areas of the ACL as well as the ACLAD records of WW 18 showing that storm drain runoff is infusing directly into the subsurface of the ACL affecting land instability. This has nothing to do with sewer hookups. In addition, the FEIR report does not fully disclose the impact of the variability of rainfall from year to year. The NOAA Climate Prediction Center has stated that there is a 66% chance of an El Nino weather pattern developing in the Southern Pacific by the end of this year. A Kelvin wave (10ºF warmer waters moving from Indonesia to South America) is currently larger and warmer than any record kept for 35 years and may exceed the 97-98 rainy season that was double our average and caused flooding and damage to local residents in Zone 2 and Zone 5. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html While this prediction is not 100% certain, what is certain is that our rainfall can at times be very heavy and may even have a greater variability due to climate change (Not addressed in the GHG section). Attachments 1-44 The FEIR also does not disclose the potential impact of converting open land that currently absorbs rainfall to post-development Zone 2 hardscape which transfers that stormwater “liability” from Zone 2 to Zone 5. 5) The FEIR offers neither analysis nor mitigation for the fact that the project and adjoining areas are within a Seismic Hazard Zone for earthquake induced landslides. FEIR: p.13-14 3.7.10 Earthquake Induced Landslides “…the project site is located within a Seismic Hazard Zone for earthquake induced landslides. Depending on the intensity of seismic shaking, seismically-induced landsliding could occur in the subject area if ground shaking is very high. Therefore we conclude that the probability of seismically-induced landslides is at least a moderate risk.” If the FEIR has evidence that the probability of seismically-induced landslide is at least a moderate risk, why is this potential significant impact not addressed? If the FEIR cannot figure out a way to mitigate this potentially significant impact then the FEIR should at least disclose it as an immitigable impact. When one adds up the accumulative list of possible inducements of landsliding in this project and adjacent areas, including seismic and hydrological, why would the City even consider taking such risks? Again, remember the risks that the cities of Oso, Washington and Jackson, Wyoming took with allowing development in their area. They now face their legacy with that disaster. If something goes wrong later, you can’t go after the geologist. He has put in his standard disclaimer though out the document that there is the potential for changes in stability of the land masses that could result in significant damage. So this judgment call is now on the City’s and taxpayer’s shoulders using this faulty, incomplete FEIR. 6) Failure to analyze project site specific soil conditions “The low permeability of the existing soils (clays) and steepness of the natural canyons, infiltration in the natural areas is likely to be low. For a given storm event, the total infiltration will not exceed the existing condition.” The erroneous conclusion that infiltration into natural steep canyons will be low is made because the FEIR ignored the unique soil conditions of the canyons and the numerous geologic studies that conclude the majority of storm water runoff infuses into the subsurface of the canyons through unique soil conditions including fissures. This is no ordinary storm drain system. 60 to 70 percent of the discharge from storms can be lost down major fracture zones in Altamira Cyn. which act as direct conduits into the subsurface with potential negative impacts to land stability for both Zone 5 as well as the Zone 2 project area. Depending on the size and duration of the storm, only 1-18 percent of the storm water in Altamira Cyn. actually reaches the ocean leaving the rest to infiltrate into the subsurface. (From: “The Creepy (Slow Moving) Landslides of the Portuguese Bend Area” by Bob Douglas). Attachments 1-45 The FEIR also did not bother to collect all of the evidence made available including local core samples that show a mixture of clay with permeable landslide debris as opposed to their boiler plate model showing only non-permeable clay soils. The FEIR has several charts that state storm water runoff of vacant lots is only 1-2% and developed lots are anywhere from 21-42%. Observations by neighbors over many years, along with photos and videos made available to this FEIR, shows the vacant lots retaining storm water and hardscaped areas sheeting storm water into the streets. There is enough evidence presented for this FEIR to conclude that the canyons and soils have high permeability and post development hardscape storm water runoff will exceed existing conditions. As a matter of fact, the only occurrence of a mudflow documented (photos submitted to the City) was in conjunction with recent development entitlements of one lot on upper Cinnamon within this project area. That lot had an MND under CEQA with specific mitigations that should have avoided such mudflow impacts. With the lack of acknowledgment of evidence and subsequent analysis of this FEIR and inadequate mitigations and monitoring with a previous MND, there is sufficient evidence for any member of the Council or public to question the adequacy of the analysis and efficacy of the mitigations and monitoring of this FEIR. 7) The hydrology methodology will not put any analysis into the project’s drainage impact upon an already deficient Altamira Cyn. and Zone 5 with the unjustifiable reason that it is in a “larger area” beyond the project description. FEIR: P. 6 1.2 Methodology “While it may be desirable to resolve the site flooding and erosion in Altamira Canyon and other natural drainage courses, it is an existing condition affecting the larger area and therefore is not addressed in this analysis.” “Should any deficiencies exist, it is a regional issue and should be addressed accordingly.” This EIR acknowledges that deficiencies exist in adjacent areas to the project but dismisses them as an “existing condition” and a “regional” issue and therefore not to be addressed in this EIR. This is contrary to CEQA guidelines that require an EIR to analyze accumulative impacts of the project to the immediate and adjoining environments The line of reasoning for this FEIR is not unlike saying that an EIR does not have to address the traffic impact of a project to “existing conditions” in the “larger area” surrounding that project because the roads in that larger area are already deficient. In other words, a Level E intersection (Poor operation - long delays, near or at capacity) cannot be analyzed if the project might lower it to Level F because the Level E road is already an “existing condition” and is a “regional issue” and not to be addressed within the EIR project impact analysis. Attachments 1-46 In the case of this FEIR, the description of the contiguous Zone 5 area as being a “larger regional” area is misleading and avoids proper analysis of impacts to Zone 5 from the project in Zone 2. Under CEQA, hydrological impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project would either contribute runoff water that exceeded the capacity of an existing storm drain system or increase infiltration which could affect the stability of existing landslides in the project vicinity. Although the FEIR may not have to correct the existing deficient drainage, the FEIR nonetheless is required to analyze the project as to a potential significant accumulative impact above and beyond the existing drainage condition including impacts to areas outside the project area such as Zone 5. There is enough evidence in the record to show that a full analysis of potential accumulative significant impacts from the project to the existing storm drain must be done. And CEQA does not allow an EIR to avoid analyzing potentially significant impacts by stating it should not address impacts to areas outside the project area or that those impacts will be studied with some unspecified future analysis and mitigation. FEIR: “Since, the entire watershed drains through the project development, flood impacts are based upon changes relative to the entire watershed.” This is another fallacy in the FEIR analysis. Fundamental science acknowledges the importance of order of magnitude. There is a huge difference between comparing the quantity of runoff from hardscape of the project to the many acres of the entire Portuguese Bend watershed acreage than comparing project runoff to the acreage of the streets and storm drains. The percentage numbers will be significantly different leading to different conclusions as to impacts. Also, this comparison of watershed drainage through the project area is not apples to apples. As demonstrated above, percolations rates vary in the watershed. The hardscape of the 47 lots has a much greater drainage impact than the many acres of pervious natural open space. 8) There is no evidence provided by this FEIR that the current storm drain system is adequately designed to handle the development of all 47 lots of the project FEIR: Appendix E Hydrology P, 4 1.2 Project Description “.…since the existing drainage system was designed for the entire Portuguese Bend development, including the 47 undeveloped lots, each lot is allowed to drain into the existing drainage system” The Hydrology report used in this FEIR assumes that the storm drain system was properly designed for all lots to be developed. But neither engineering nor design specifications are provided. The FEIR doesn’t even provide evidence that the storm drain system was even engineered or designed by anyone. If anything, the evidence provided and acknowledged in this FEIR proves that the storm drain was not engineered as it is inadequate to handle even pre- project development, let alone accumulative impacts of the project runoff. Attachments 1-47 The FEIR comes to the conclusion that there is some kind of right for the undeveloped lot owners to accumulatively add stormwater to this already deficient stormdrain system without assessing potential negative impacts. I have never heard of such a justification for an EIR to deny an analysis of potential negative impacts, especially when the FEIR admits that the current storm drain is inadequate. The FEIR also does not address the possibility of subdivision of any of those 47 lots. FEIR: Hydrological recommendations “Reduce significant increases in runoff rates and volume in localized areas by low impact development principles such as, but not limited to, infiltration trenches, cisterns, bio-retention areas, or permeable pavement identified in the County’s LID manual.” First, these suggested mitigations are boiler plate water quality mitigations, not water quantity impact mitigations. Second, these suggested mitigation measures, including “infiltration trenches, cisterns, bio-retention areas and permeable pavement” are contrary to the geologist’s recommendation to mitigate against water infiltration for the development of the 47 lots and are contrary to the selected mitigations of this FEIR. All of this confusion needs to be straightened out before the Council or the public can adequately review the adequacy of the mitigations of this FEIR. FEIR: “Reference plans and design calculations were not available for confirmation of the capacity of the existing drains. A detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the existing drainage system, including culverts, streets, and open drainage courses was not prepared as a part of this analysis.” Section 15147 of CEQA states “The information contained in an EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, plot plans, diagrams, and similar relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public.” This FEIR leaves the unanswered question of specifications as to the original storm drain design and states that it will not engage in an analysis to determine the amount of storm water the storm drain system can handle nor the accumulative impact of the project to that storm drain system. Nor did the original storm drain system account for the 1980’s ACL and subsequent fissures developing to infuse stormwater into the subsurface of the ACL in Altamira Cyn. The report further admits that the FEMA Flood Zone “D”(Altamira Cyn.) has not had any flood hazard analysis leaving the question of potential impact to a homeowner’s flood insurance unanswered. Assumptions made by this FEIR as to any mitigation recommendations are therefore baseless, unverifiable and could have potential significant impacts of which are not being addressed. Attachments 1-48 FEIR: “The project shall address impacts to the immediate vicinity as well as downstream facilities, including culverts, roads, open drainage courses, and Altamira Canyon, and demonstrate there is no change from existing conditions.” This statement is begging for an accumulative Zone 2 project Hydrological Study, analysis of impacts and subsequent mitigations. Where are the FEIR mitigations that address “impacts to downstream facilities”? The FEIR has already stated it will not do any studies and does not have engineering for the storm drain system. As stated in this comment letter, there is evidence that post-project drainage will accumulatively increase and have an impact to the environment which is opposite of this statement that there will be “no change from existing conditions”. FEIR 1: “Testimony and video provided by residents indicates that some culverts and roads are inadequate to convey existing runoff.” FEIR 2: “The combined impacts resulting from the development of the 47 lots is deemed to be insignificant for the following reasons: The existing (natural) drainage patterns are maintained and the combination of the natural and constructed drainage conveyances and surface flow has the capacity to convey the runoff from the project site.” These two FEIR statements as to the capacity of the storm drain system are in direct conflict with each other and do not justify the “no impact” conclusion of this FEIR. The FEIR has stated that there are no engineering plans to justify the second statement. Full evidence has been presented to the EIR consultants to show that additional stormwater will accumulatively have a potential negative impact not only on the deficient storm drain system but potentially significant impacts to land stability for both Zone 2 and Zone 5. All of this contradictory and missing information is in fundamental violation of CEQA’s primary goal of disclosure in order to provide this community’s right to assess the impact of the addition of the development of the 47 lots to the existing storm drain system, the safety of residents in Zone 5 and the safety of the proposed project residents in Zone 2. 9) The FEIR did not consider development tracts added to the project watershed after the storm drain system was put into place. Appendix 9 of this FEIR shows that the City permitted development in the 1960’s in Tract 27789, 28584, Tract 31716 in 1978 and (Tract 38848) Island View development in the early 1980’s all of which drain into Altamira Cyn. All of these tract storm drains were installed subsequent to when the Portuguese Bend storm drain system was put in place. This FEIR does not show any evidence that the existing storm drain system is designed to accumulatively handle this additional hundreds of acres of tract development runoff let alone the proposed project. 10) Emergency access impacts not considered Attachments 1-49 The majority of the storm drain system described in this FEIR is street surfaces. There are some streets in Zone 5 that are very steep and, because storm water runoff is concentrated on the street surfaces, residents during storms have had difficulty getting enough traction on those steep streets for emergency exit. This condition exists before the addition of the project’s runoff. This is especially important for residents of Figtree Rd. which receives the accumulative bulk of the street storm drain system and is one of the steepest streets in the community. Public safety services could also have impaired access during an emergency on these slippery streets. The FEIR does not discuss this potentially significant impact. 11) Mitigations for significant impacts are described to occur in the future in a segmented fashion which avoids full analysis of accumulative impacts of this project. FEIR: “To identify and mitigate potential localized flood impacts to adjacent properties and facilities to a level not considered significant the project applicants must do the following: A detailed Hydrology Study shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer and approved by the City. The study shall address impacts to the proposed building site, as well as upstream and downstream properties. “ This Hydrology Study mitigation requirement of individual lots after this FEIR has been certified violates two fundamental CEQA guidelines. a) An EIR cannot put off mitigation for stated significant impacts to sometime in the future, b) This mitigation is avoiding addressing accumulative impacts of the project as a whole and instead segmenting the mitigation to individual lots. This detailed Hydrological Study is precisely the kind of study that needs to be done for the entire project under this EIR, not for each lot individually sometime in the future. Individual lot analysis of hydrological impacts by its nature is a segmentation of this project and this way of approaching a mitigation will eliminate the public’s right to know the accumulative hydrological impact of all 47 lots of this project taken as a whole. CONCLUSION As I hope I have shown, the impacts of this project are not adequately addressed meaning that neither this FEIR can be certified nor the project can be approved. I offer you another way of looking at this FEIR. Imagine if instead of storm drain and geology issues, the significant impacts of the project revolved around inadequate fire hydrant infrastructure. Imagine the City has asked the Fire Marshal to accept new homes be added to an existing deficient hydrant system and accept a new Court ordered safety standard because: Attachments 1-50 -The FEIR made an unsubstantiated conclusion that currently undersized 4” lines were originally planned for full build out and thusly additional homes had a right to be added to that deficient hydrant capacity. -The proportional number of hydrants in the proposed development area compared to hydrants in a much larger area outside of the project area is small enough so as to not be considered significant. -To ignore the additional home’s impact of the pressure drop in the already deficient 4” lines to the downhill properties because the hydrants for those downhill properties were a “regional” issue and thusly were not to be addressed in the FEIR. -Upgrading the hydrant infrastructure to impacted areas of the project area was economically infeasible. -To accept the mitigation that the impact of 47 homes on the hydrant infrastructure only be evaluated on a one by one individual lot basis, not the entire project’s accumulative impact. -And the FEIR asks the Fire Marshal to accept a new standard of safety from a Court order by three Appellate Judges even though they know very little about hydrant infrastructure needs. And that new Court standard spells out that the Fire Marshall has to put aside a duty to protection of public property and accept an allowance of some fire damage to structures as long as the deficient hydrant infrastructure did not cause harm of limb or life. The Marshall would have to consider how that decision would affect the Marshall’s current standards of safety, liability and reputation as well as consider the impact of future development proposals in other areas demanding they be treated equally with the same new Court standard. I sincerely doubt the Fire Marshall would accept these conditions and excuses laid out in this scenario and would not certify the FEIR nor approve the project. The Council is the decision maker now and has to weigh out similar recommendations and rationale of this FEIR and Zone change proposal. I have confidence you will weigh all of the facts and make the right decision. Thank you, Jim Knight Resident of Portuguese Bend Attachments 1-51 4/29/2014 Re: Zone 2 FEIR Honorable Mayor and Council, Thank you for taking the time to consider this significant issue before you now. I am writing because I feel that certifying the Zone 2 EIR in its current state would not be of benefit to the City or its residents and would actually be a detriment. Building homes on and adjacent to unstable land is not something you have to allow. It is the City's desire and the City's choice to do this and to produce this EIR. There is no court mandate to produce this EIR. Therefore, it is very important you be certain this is exactly what you want and how you want to do it. This decision will forever be a part of your political and service legacy. The volume of printed matter is substantial yet much of it centers around a few incorrect assumptions that are then defended over and over again, though their initial premise was faulty. Some of these are as follows: 1) The Portuguese Bend Community Association is responsible for the roads and the drainage for the homes in this project. This is not true. The project is for homes in Zone 2, not Portuguese Bend. There are lots in this project that the PBCA has no jurisdiction over. Portions of this project are being ignored by the responsible parties and cast upon the PBCA. 2) The roads were designed and built (two different actions) for a full build out of the project. This is not true. There are no designs, no engineering plans or building permits or approvals found of any sort for any road or storm drain infrastructure. To base the majority of the building assumptions on this false premise is disturbing. 3) The well established factor of safety can be replaced by a judge's opinion for a few lots. No, it cannot. The opinion was for a few lots only. The recent landslide tragedy in Washington State resulted in substantial loss of life because science was ignored. When an uneducated judge sets a geologic Attachments 1-52 standard for economic reasons and you then take the questionable decision and apply it broadly, you run the risk of coming down on the wrong side of Mother Nature. What is known is that the factor of safety for this area is less than 1.5. Period. You cannot change that and you cannot allow that (sub)standard to replace the accepted norm for other residents in the City. The decision was only for a few lots, not carte blanche. 4) Zone 2 exists in a vacuum. It does not. It is abutted by other Zones and influences and is influenced by other areas. It is supported geologically by less and less stable land. It is only accessible through unstable land. It is surrounded by land that is zoned for development as well. Not to consider that potential is wrong. If you don't believe the other areas will be developed, like PlumTree, Point View, etc. then why would they be zoned for development? You control the zoning and so you must want those areas developed or you would have zoned it otherwise. Until any zoning is changed, their eventual development must be a part of your plan. 5)Altamira Canyon has nothing to do with the project. Nothing could be further from the truth. The water in that canyon feeds the landslides and there are only two ways of dealing with it. You can either put less in or take more out. And Mother Nature can put a lot more back in than you can take out, especially if the amount of hardscape increases as much as is proposed. The new homes would increase the number of residences by almost 75 % but the size of the home also almost doubles. The number of new dewatering wells proposed does not increase anywhere near proportionally (2 more may be added to the almost two dozen in service). Lining the canyon is another option but is dismissed, though it was originally one of the most important stabilizing recommendations given to the City. For the rest of this letter, I cut sections from the document and explain what they say to me. My comments and interpretations there are bolded. 1) "Though both of these slides (Abalone Cove and Portuguese Bend) generally moved “at once,” surface monument data as well as historical data indicate that the first and greater movement occurred at the toe of the slide and then decreased up-slope such that the slides “shingle” up-slope with the toe area showing a greater “rubble” appearance than those areas higher up Attachments 1-53 (LGC Valley, Inc., 2011). Thus, the material near the toe of the landslide has a distinctly different and chaotic structure with very low strength as compared to the landslide debris higher uphill, which is more intact and has a greater inherent strength." "As indicated above, the movement of lower land masses subsequently decreases support of the land higher up creating distinct zones within each landslide that are progressively less broken and therefore stronger up slope. The larger uphill masses provide significant support to up-slope property because it remains fairly intact." This is another way of saying that the project is built on landslide debris that is supported by less and less stable land until you get to the ocean where the toe of the landslide no longer exists and it is not supported at all. 2) "It should be noted that, because Altamira Canyon currently experiences erosion and will continue to experience erosion with or without adoption of the proposed ordinance revisions, the City has explored other measures to address the existing erosion but they have been rejected as infeasible, too costly, or an undue burden to be placed on remaining lots to be developed. These include streambed restoration / stabilization concepts and diversion drains. The former include lining the streambed with concrete or riprap, or installing drop structures and point and/or toe stabilizers to reduce the grade of the streambed to a stable grade. These were determined to be infeasible due to the damage to habitat that would result as well as cost. Construction of a diversion drain or ditches has also been considered, however a significant quantity of new pipeline would be required. This would require substantial excavation in streets as well as construction through some of the existing lots. In addition, the resulting benefit would be negligible because it would only divert the small contribution of the remaining lots that would become developable, and would not address the main cause of the erosion: the existing runoff currently outletting into Altamira Canyon from the entire watershed." Just because the solution seems impossible, too expensive, too much work or just inconvenient is no reason to add to the problem. This is the crux of the unbelievable insanity of this FEIR. What this says is that because the problem and its solution is so huge, we can add a little more to it. It is too big and expensive to deal with so putting a few more homes in harms way isn't any major concern. This is no way for a city to conduct business. Knowing that water in Altamira Canyon is Attachments 1-54 feeding the landslides and then feeding that beast by adding more is irresponsible government at its most irresponsible. 3)".....the project, with the mitigation identified, would not result in a significant contribution to localized flooding or to the stormwater drainage system." This is stated over and over and over again in the FEIR and comment section as if saying it enough times will make it true. One look at the volume of water running off one of newest, most comparable homes in the area and you realize it is impossible. The volume and rate of runoff from pure hardscape is tremendous- see the video provided. 4) "Within Zone 2, pumping wells have lowered the groundwater table, drainage has been improved, and the movement on the adjacent ACL has slowed substantially. With the exception of differences of opinion with regard to why or even if there is true land movement in ACL and Zone 2, it appears that these conditions have generally been met, and that the uncertainty with regard to landslide control has been abated." Seriously? With differences of opinion regarding why there is land movement in Abalone Cove you decide to declare the landslide has now been abated? The City only recently, the last couple years or so, repaired part of PV Drive South below the Wayfarer's Chapel for a crack that extends straight up to Narcissa and crosses it twice. As I noted above, the current number of homes in Zone 2 will be increased by almost 75% and the average home size will almost double. That amount of increase in hardscape and water runoff back into the landslide is not being met by a proportional increase in the ability to remove the additional water. Outside of Zone 2 the wells have not met with much, if any, success. These areas are intertwined with and abut Zone 2. All access to Zone 2 is through the more unstable lands. 5) "mandatory compliance with applicable CBC requirements would reduce impacts to a less than significant level." The subsequent adoption of the Nuisance standard for ground stability rather than the standard 1.5 factor of safety makes that statement of dubious worth and makes me wonder if the City is taking this seriously or not. I think the California Attachments 1-55 Building Code does care about "life and limb" as well as whether your house cracks up. "Generally speaking, a factor of safety of 1.5 is the condition to achieve for development projects with slopes that may affect the sites. However, professional judgment and review, geotechnical analysis, and a recent judicial decision regarding the project area have resulted in a consensus that the site has an uncertain factor of safety (LGC Valley, 2011)." Enough said. And you want to start the rest of your political careers allowing this project to go forward as (un)planned on land with an uncertain factor of safety? 6) "Post-construction lot infiltration and runoff rates and volume shall be made equal to pre-construction conditions through use of appropriate low impact development principles such as, but not limited to, detaining peak flows and use of cisterns, bio-retention areas, green roofs and permeable hardscape." Sounds great but...There is a lot of history that shows very little if no runoff from many of the naturally planted lots. This FEIR does not require any study or documentation of the preconstruction runoff. Rather, that amount is assumed to be a mathematical calculation that I assure you- and you are welcome to view several hours of video documenting it, is not accurate. But, this is merely a stipulation with no meaning because if the runoff actually exceeds what it should, then here is the proposed solution: "Runoff from all buildings and paved areas not infiltrated or retained/detained on site to match existing conditions shall be collected and directed to the street or to an approved drainage course as approved by the City EngineerDirector of Public Works." So, you just dump it on the roads anyway....How exactly is that a mitigation? Many commenters noted this and the response was: "The commenter states an opinion that the existing drainage system for Zone 2 is substandard, and that land movement in the project area has affected grading slopes, compaction and contiguous drainage paths. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, and under Topical Response 8.1.a: Hydrology, Water Quality and Drainage in subsection 8.1, above, build out under the proposed ordinance revisions, with the mitigation identified, would not substantially change existing runoff amounts or rates and thus would not contribute to any deficiencies in the drainage system that may exist." May exist? Isn't that why you are doing an EIR? Not Attachments 1-56 knowing if deficiencies exist and to be the very agency wanting this project is disingenuous and that is being generous. Yet as we just read, if the project doesn't contain all its water, it is to be put on the street anyway, making a bad situation worse. 7) "It should be noted that the City is not in possession of a plan for the subdivision and infrastructure of the Zone 2 area that specifically states which lots were accommodated in the plan for drainage. However, it may be reasonably assumed that the roads and drainage system were constructed to service all of the lots that were created with the subdivision." There was no plan as far as anyone can tell. The City makes a huge assumption here and bases a lot of the argument for ignoring the road and drainage problems on this assumption. There are road and drainage problems precisely because there never was an approved road plan. Even if there were, it would have been based on much smaller houses, fewer and smaller and lighter vehicles and never took in to consideration the upstream projects pouring massive amounts of water in to the area or the reactivation of two landslides. So, even if there had been a plan, it was a bad one. I would assume if you can't find any trace of a plan, then there wasn't one. 8) "The EIR is a programmatic document that addresses impacts for the program as a whole; individual drainage studies would not be appropriate, as no specific projects are associated with the proposed ordinance revisions." Too many times this concept of being programmatic is used to defer study. If the individual drainage studies are not appropriate then a global drainage study would be and that has not been done and is not proposed. Over and over throughout the comment section concerns about deferral of study for important aspects of the project are brushed off as "programmatic." For example, the statement that the design, approval and construction of wastewater conveyance facilities would be dependent upon the timing of development of the 47 undeveloped lots and that as proposals for development are submitted, each developer would be required to comply with City requirements, is very clearly deferring study. How can you not have a comprehensive plan in place first for something as vital wastewater management? Surely the last lot to be developed will face a very different set of circumstances than the first projects underway if you don't start with a plan in mind. Are the goals and regulations going to change with each subsequent house or is Attachments 1-57 there going to be a plan that is followed? It really seems like the City will be making it up as they go along, rather than following a well thought-out plan. I think a lot of time was spent in the preparation of this EIR to word things in a way that makes them sound sensible. However, when you read and decipher what is being said, I think and hope you come away with a different point of view. Thank you for your time. Certifying the EIR in this final form will be anything but final. Cassie Jones Rancho Palos Verdes Attachments 1-58 Mr. Eduardo Schonborn Stuart Miller Attorney at Law 24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 580-3737 fax (949) 580-3738 stuartmiller@earthlink.net www.stuartmillerlaw.com April 28, 2014 Department of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Comments on Final Environmental Impact Report Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions Dear Mr. Schonborn: Admitted in CA and NY Along with Scott Wellman of Wellman & Warren LLP, I represent the Portuguese Bend Community Association ("PBCA") with regard to the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") on the Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions. We submit these comments to identify what we perceive as serious deficiencies in the FEIR. In brief, we see five main problems: 1. The FEIR delegates to a variety of staff members and consultants the determination of whether there are significant impacts regarding water runoff and what the appropriate mitigation measures should be. Under the procedures outlined in the FEIR, these decisions will be made on an ad hoc basis without formal coordination among staff and the consultants, with no specific standards for them to follow, and with no objective means of testing the success of their decisions. This delegation violates well- established legal principles governing environmental impact reports. Attachments 1-59 Mr. Eduardo Schonborn Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 2 2. The FEIR's substantive conclusions regarding runoff are based upon an unexplained and improbable projection that development on 47 lots will generate zero additional runoff, and upon speculation about a "design" purportedly made in 1949 that no one involved in the current project has ever seen. 3. The FEIR's substantive conclusions about the effects of development on the roads within Portuguese Bend are based on impossible projections regarding traffic flow out of Portuguese Bend and a refusal, despite legal requirements to the contrary, to study traffic and physical damage to the roads within Portuguese Bend. 4. On behalf of the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District, the President of its Board of Directors, Dr. Robert Douglas, submitted detailed comments to the consultant dated July 31, 2013. (These comments accompany this letter as Exhibit 1.) These comments provide important information challenging the consultant's assumptions and conclusions regarding hydrology, but the consultant did not include or respond to them in the FEIR. The consultant should respond to them now. 5. The FEIR misinterprets the effect of Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 263 on the lots owned by the non-Monks plaintiffs. I. INADEQUACY OF DEFINED MITIGATION The FEIR is contrary to several related principles governing the definition of mitigation measures. We will first state those principles and then show in detail how six critical mitigation measures in the FEIR violate them. Attachments 1-60 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 3 A. General principles 1. Delegation of authority to determine significant impacts or mitigation measures. First, the lead agency (here, the City Council) may not delegate authority to determine mitigation measures "to a person or entity that is not a decision- making body." (POET, LLC v. California Air Resources Board (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 731.) As shown below, the FEIR violates this principle because it improperly "delegates [the City Council's] responsibility to assess the project's environmental impacts to the staff ... "and outside consultants. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296 , 307.) 2. Deferral of determination of mitigation measures. Second, the agency may not defer the determination of mitigation measures (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126.4(a)(l)(B)) unless "three elements are satisfied. First, practical considerations prevented the formulation of mitigation measures at the usual time in the planning process. Second, the agency committed itself to formulating the mitigation measures in the future. Third, the agency adopted specific performance criteria that the mitigation measures were required to satisfy." (POET, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at 736 [emphasis added].) The requirement of specific performance criteria is not satisfied, for example, by a projection that "any new development would maintain, and would not exacerbate , the existing runoff and infiltration conditions." (FEIR p. 4.8-11.) Rather, the FEIR must explain in detail how this improbable result will be achieved and how success will be confirmed. Attachments 1-61 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page4 Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70 involved a study of greenhouse gas emissions. Like the FEIR does here with regard to runoff, the FEIR in Communities for a Better Environment anticipated no increase in emissions. The court held that the FEIR must provide "assurance that the plan for how the Project's greenhouse gas emissions would be mitigated to a net-zero standard was both feasible and efficacious." (Id. at 95.) In other words, the Zone 2 FEIR may not merely state there will be no additional runoff from the development of 47 more lots, as it does repeatedly. (E.g., pp. 4.5-20, 4.8-11, 4.8-18, 8-5, 8-39-40.) Rather, it must explain the basis for this improbable conclusion. In POET, supra, the EIR addressed increases in the emission of nitrogen oxide ("NOx"). The court held that '"no increase in NOx' is not a specific performance criterion." (POET, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at 739.) Rather, as in Communities for a Better Environment, it held that the FEIR must state with specificity how the goal of zero emissions would be achieved and measured: We conclude that [the agency's] statement that its future rulemaking will "establish specifications to ensure there is no increase in NOx" suffers from the same defect as the net-zero standard for greenhouse gas emissions adopted in [Communities for a Better Environment]-it established no objective performance criteria for measuring whether the stated goal will be achieved. As a result, we and members of the public have not been informed how [the agency] will determine that the requirements it adopts in a fuel specifications regulation will ensure that use of the biodiesel does not increase NOx emissions. To illustrate this point, it is unclear what tests will be performed and what measurements will be taken to determine that biodiesel use is not increasing NOx emissions. Attachments 1-62 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 5 (Id. at 740 [emphases added].) The legal principles described above can be summarized as follows: 1. No delegation of authority to determine "significant impacts" or mitigation measures. 2. No deferral of determination of mitigation measures without "specific performance criteria." 3. "Specific performance criteria" require detailed explanations of how the goal will be achieved and how success will be tested. 4. "Zero emissions" and "zero runoff' in themselves are not specific performance criteria. B. Improper delegation and deferral regarding water runoff. 1. HWQ-1: This mitigation measure is intended to address erosion. It requires each applicant to "prepare a Construction Erosion Control and Water Quality Plan for the review and approval of the Building Official." (FEIR p. 4.8-8.) No guidance or requirements are provided to assist the applicant in preparing the plan or to assist the Building Official in the "review and approval" process. On the contrary, the measure leaves the standards undefined, stating only that "The plan shall include Best Management Practices that may include .... " (Ibid. [emphasis added].) (Also, as we explain in the discussion of measure HWQ-2 below, the phrase "best management practices" as defined in the City's Municipal Code is such a broad and general concept that it provides no guidance to the applicant or the Building Official.) Beyond that, measure HWQ-1 is an improper delegation because its goal is "to Attachments 1-63 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 6 reduce impacts related to water quality during construction activities to a less than significant level." (FEIR p. 4.8-8.) The City Council is responsible for determining in the FEIR what effects are "significant." (14 Cal. Code Regs§ 15064(b).) However, this measure leaves that determination to the Building Official. Measure HWQ-1 violates all four legal principles enumerated above. 2. HWQ-2: This measure addresses impenneable surfaces on the newly-developed lots, which cause the "significant" impact of excess pollution-bearing runoff unless mitigated. (FEIR p. 4.8-10.) If not mitigated, development can cause an increase in runoff of up to 38% on each lot. (Ibid.) The measure provides that any developmental proposal exceeding 2,500 square feet of impervious surface requires "review and approval by the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) consultant." (FEIR p. 4.8-11.) It improperly delegates to the NPDES consultant the determination of what percentage of increase would be "less than significant" and what measures are required to achieve that reduction. (FEIR p. 4.8-11.) Contrary to the requirements of POET, supra, it does not explain how the decrease in runoff will be measured. This measure also "require[ s] adherence to the Municipal Code requirements related to the NPDES pennit." (FEIR p. 4.8-10.) Section 13.10 of the Municipal Code governs NPDES issues. Although§§ 13.10.050(D)(3) and 13.10.65(B) require the use of "best management practices," "best management practices" is defined in terms other than what is suggested by its actual words: "Best management practices (BMP 's)" means activities, practices, facilities, and/or procedures that when implemented to their maximum efficiency will prevent or reduce pollutants Attachments 1-64 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 7 in discharges and any program technology, process, citing criteria, operational methods or measures, or engineered systems, which when implemented prevent, control, remove, or reduce pollution. Examples ofBMP's may include public education and outreach, proper planning of development projects, proper cleaning of catch basin inlets, and proper sludge-or waste-handling and disposal, among others. (Municipal Code§ 13.10.030(D) [emphasis added].) In other words, "best management practices" include all measures that have any beneficial effect. They do not have to be the "best" in any sense, and neither mitigation measure HWQ-2 nor the Municipal Code provide the City's NPDES consultant with particular guidance in the "review and approval" process. Beyond that, while HWQ-2 puts the "review and approval" process in the hands of "the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) consultant" (FEIR p. 4.8-11), Municipal Code§ 10.13.020(D) assigns the same function to an unidentified "authorized enforcement officer," while § 10.13 .065(D) assigns it to the Director of Public Works. There are therefore three uncoordinated persons with uncertain and overlapping authority to determine what undefined "best management practices" are required for each lot to avoid undefined "significant" environmental impacts. Measure HWQ-2 violates all four legal principles enumerated above. 3. HWQ-3: This measure addresses increases in the amount of impermeable surface and resulting increase in runoff. It incorporates measures GE0-3 and HWQ-4. (We address HWQ-4 below.) We perceive several problems with GE0-3: First, it is circular and therefore meaningless. It provides that "individual project applicants shall comply with all recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Attachments 1-65 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 8 Study prepared by LGC Valley, Inc., dated March 29, 2011." (FEIR p. 4.5-19.) However, the LGC Valley Geotechnical Study (FEIR Appendix D) provides that "a geotechnical report must be submitted to and approved by the City's geotechnical reviewers indicating what, if any, lot-local and immediately adjacent geologic hazards must be addressed and/or corrected prior to, or during construction." (Appendix D p. 16.) In other words, the FEIR says the standards are set forth now in the LGC Valley report, but the LGC Valley report says the standards will be established on an ad hoc basis in the future by whoever the City's "geotechnical reviewers" happen to be at the time of each lot owner's application. Second, it requires the following deferred and delegated evaluations lacking specific performance criteria: • "If lot drainage deficiencies are identified by the director of public works, all such deficiencies shall be corrected by the applicant." (FEIR p. 4.8-17.) There is no explanation of what standards the Director will use, how "the deficiencies shall be corrected," or how the success of the correction will be measured. • "Roof runoff from all buildings and structures on the site shall be contained and directed to the streets or an approved drainage course." (Ibid.) This task is presumably assigned to the Director of Public Works, although the FEIR does not actually say so. There are no specific standards defining how drainage courses are "approved." • "If required by the city geotechnical staff, the applicant shall submit a soils report, and/or a geotechnical report, for the review and approval of the city geotechnical staff." (Ibid.) There are no standards to guide the geotechnical staff in demanding or Attachments 1-66 Mr. Eduardo Schonborn Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 9 evaluating the reports or detennining whether the impacts of development at that particular lot would be "significant." • "All landscaping irrigation systems shall be part of a water management system approved by the director of public works." (Ibid.) There are no standards for the Director to follow in approving the systems and no means of testing the success of the systems the Director approves. • "[S]torm drainage improvements that address drainage deficiencies and avoid increases infiltration of stonnwater [shall] be designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits on the individual subject lots." (Ibid.) Again, this provision leaves to the Director the task of defining what effects are "significant," and it is unclear what standards the Director will use or how the effectiveness of the Director's standards will be tested. Measures HWQ-3 and GE0-3 violate all four legal principles enumerated above. 4. HWQ-4: This measure concerns flooding. It incorporates measure GE0-3 (FEIR pp. 4.8-12, 4.8-16), which suffers from the delegated and uncoordinated authority and lack of specific and testable standards described in detail above. Measure HWQ-4 also requires "Each of the property owners [to] prepare a detailed hydrologic analysis to demonstrate compliance with the mitigation measures listed below." (FEIR p. 4.8-16.) Three of the four "mitigation measures listed below" require review by the Director of Public Works, while one requires review by "the city geotechnical staff." (FEIR p. 4.8- 17.) The only one that seems to provide guidance is the fourth, concerning landscaping irrigation systems, which shall be limited to the amount of water "necessary to maintain Attachments 1-67 Mr. Eduardo Schonborn Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 10 the yard or garden." (Ibid.) The other three, addressed in the discussion of measure GEO- 3 above, provide no guidance for the Director or geotechnical staff in making their decisions and no way of testing their effect. Even with these measures in place, the FEIR concludes that "impacts would be potentially significant." (Ibid.) To reduce these impacts "to a less than significant level" (ibid.), the FEIR expressly delegates to the Director of Public Works the City Council's job "to determine impacts" while providing the Director with no guidance other than the circular standard of "to the satisfaction of the Director" and such vague tenns as "nonnalized," "appropriate," "adequately," "acceptable," and City "policies." (FEIR pp. 4.8-17-18.) Measure HWQ-4 violates all four legal principles enumerated above. 5. HWQ-5: This measure regarding flooding requires the Building Official to determine whether "new construction [is] adequately anchored" and "resistant to flood damage." (FEIR p. 4. 8-19.) There are no standards defining "adequately" or "resistant," and no explanation of how these qualities will be tested. Measure HWQ-5 violates all four legal principles enumerated above. 6. U-1: This measure addressing wastewater conveyance and treatment provides that "the capacity of the required holding tank system shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Building Official." (FEIR p. 4-11.5.) It leaves to the Building Official the discretion to determine what capacity is necessary to mitigate this "significant but mitigable" enviromnental impact. (FEIR p. 4-11.3.) However, it provides the Building Official no standards for detennining proper capacity and defines no means of testing the Attachments 1-68 Mr. Eduardo Schonborn Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 11 Building Official's detennination that a particular capacity will adequately mitigate the "significant" effect. Measure U-1 violates all four legal principles enumerated above. C. Lack of coordination These measures to identify and mitigate significant impacts from water assign tasks to seven different persons: the Director of Public Works, the Building Official, the NPDES consultant, the "authorized enforcement officer," LGC Valley Inc., the City's "geotechnical reviewers," and the City's "geotechnical staff." There is no required coordination among them, and in none of these cases is there any guidance for these officials and consultants to determine what impacts are "significant" or how they can be mitigated to a status of"less than significant." The problem is summarized in the following chart: ISSUE MEASURE DELEGATEE SPECIFIC STANDARDS Erosion HWQ-1 Building Official None Runoff HWQ-2 ---+ NPDES consultant None. -> MC13.10.030(D)---+ "Authorized enforcement officer" Three people with ---+ MC13.10.065(D)---+ Director of Public Works overlapping authority; no coordination. Amount of HWQ-3/GE0-3 FEIR says LGC Valley sets None impermeable standards, but LGC says City's surface "geotechnical reviewers" set them. Drainage HWQ-3/GE0-3/ Director of Public Works None deficiencies HWQ-4 Soils report HWQ-3/GE0-3/ "City geotechnical staff' None HWQ-4 Water HWQ-3/GE0-3/ Director of Public Works None management HWQ-4 Attachments 1-69 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 12 Storm water HWQ-3/GE0-3 Director of Public Works None infiltration Hydrology HWQ-4 Director of Public Works None study Flooding HWQ-5 Director of Public Works None Wastewater U-1 Building Official None II. RUNOFF FROM THE UNDEVELOPED LOTS The FEIR states repeatedly that there will be absolutely zero excess runoff caused by development of the undeveloped lots in Zone 2. For example: [A]ny new development would maintain, and would not exacerbate, the existing runoff and infiltration conditions .... (FEIR pp. 4.5-20, 4.8-11.) Post-construction lot infiltration and runoff rates and volume shall be made equal to pre-construction conditions .... (FEIR p. 4.8-18.) By maintaining post-development drainage conditions at the same level as existing conditions, no increase in runoff rates and volumes to Altamira Canyon would occur. (FEIR p. 8-5.) [T]he project would not result in substantial increases of infiltration .... [T]he project, with the mitigation identified, would not result in a significant increase of groundwater infusion. (FEIR pp. 8-39-40.) The FEIR presents two bases for its assumption that the goal of zero increase is feasible, but neither one actually supports it: Attachments 1-70 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 13 A. False assumption that increase in runoff can be reduced to zero without providing specific performance criteria explaining how this result will be achieved and how success will be measured. As we have explained above, an FEIR may not defer the determination of mitigation measures without providing specific performance criteria, which means (a) what the result is, (b) how it will be achieved, and © how its achievement will be measured. We have shown in detail how measures HWQ-1, HWQ-2, HWQ-3, GE0-3, HWQ-4, HWQ-5, and U-1 violate this principle. The FEIR concedes that the existing drainage system is inadequate to convey runoff from the existing developed lots. (FEIR p. 4.8-1.) It estimates that development can cause an increase in runoff on each lot of up to 38%. (FEIR pp. 4.8-10, 4.8-16.) The notion that this massive percentage can be reduced not just by some significant fraction but to zero at each of 47 different locations comprising 43 acres (Appendix E p. 4) is counterintuitive and improbable. It requires far more justification than the FEIR's solution of leaving the uncoordinated determination of what effects are "significant" and how they will be mitigated to the City's Building Official (HWQ-1, HWQ-5, and U-1), NPDES consultant (HWQ-2), LGC Valley, Inc. (HWQ-3/GE0-3), geotechnical reviewers (HWQ-3/GE0-3), geotechnical staff (HWQ-3/GE0-3), and Director of Public Works (HQ-2, HWQ-3/GE0-3, HWQ-4, and HWQ-5). Indeed, by the FEIR's terms, achievement of the goal of zero additional runoff is not just unlikely, but impossible. Measure HWQ-2, which requires review and approval of the City's NPDES consultant, does not apply at all to any development of less than Attachments 1-71 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re : PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 14 2,500 square feet. (FEIR pp. 4.8-10-11.) If there is even one such development on any of the 4 7 lots, the goal of zero increase in runoff cannot be achieved. Beyond that, a standard of zero increase is not a specific performance criterion. (POET, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at 739.) Rather, the FEIR must provide "assurance that the plan for how the Project's [discharge] would be mitigated to a net-zero standard was both feasible and efficacious." (Communities for a Better Environment, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at 95 [emphasis added].) The FEIR's optimistic anticipation that the City's various staff members and consultants somehow will figure out how to achieve this ambitious goal through a series of ad hoc determinations that do not even require formal coordination among themselves does not satisfy this strict standard. Nor does it explain "what tests will be performed and what measurements will be taken to determine" if the goal of zero increase is actually achieved. (POET, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at 740.) B. False reliance on an assumed but nonexistent development plan from 1949. The FEIR assumes that the existing drainage system was designed for all the lots in Zone 2. For example: The existing drainage system in the project area was designed for the 111 lots within the 112-acre Portuguese Bend area (the Zone 2 area), including the 47 lots that could be developed as part of the project. (FEIR p. 4.8-1.) The existing drainage system in the project area was designed for all 111 lots in the 112-acre Zone 2 area. (FEIR p. 4.8-12.) [T]he existing drainage system was designed for the entire Attachments 1-72 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 15 Portuguese Bend development, including the 4 7 undeveloped lots. (FEIR Appendix E p. 4.)1 This repetitive assumption about how the drainage system was "designed" is contrary to the consultant's admission that "Reference plans and design calculations were not available for confirmation of the capacity of the existing drains." (Ibid.) The consultant has never seen the "design" and "plans" it repeatedly relies upon. In their comments on the draft environmental impact report ("DEIR"), multiple interested parties addressed the consultant's erroneous and speculative reliance on the 1949 "design." (E.g., FEIR pp. 8-47, 8-55, 8-90-91, 8-204.) For example, Portuguese Bend resident Jeremy Davies wrote: [Section] 4.8a states "Since the existing drainage system was designed for the entire Portuguese Bend development, including the 47 undeveloped lots, each lot is assumed to have a proportional share of the existing drainage capacity provided for the Portuguese Bend development. In other words, regardless of when the lots are constructed, each lot is allowed to drain into the existing drainage system based upon the size of the lot." The original plan for Portuguese Bend goes back to 1949. The DEIR does not spell out where the assumption comes from nor the assumptions used regarding size of homes and garages, number of vehicles per home, 1The consultant is under the mistaken impression that "Portuguese Bend" is a synonym for "Zone 2." (FEIR p. 4.8-1.) A closer synonym for "Portuguese Bend" is what has been known as "the Landslide Moratorium Area." (E.g., http://www.palosverdes.com/ rpv/planning/ Agendas_ -_current_ agendas/planningcommission/2011/2011_04_13 _ Planning_ Commission_ Agenda/Hypothetical-Policy-Scenario.pdf; Rancho Palos Verdes Ordinance 452U entitled "Evaluation of Portuguese Bend Landslide Moratorium Ordinance," http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/Evaluation _of _Portuguese_ Bend_ Landslide_ and_ Moratorium_ Ordinance/ordinance-452U l .cfm.) Portuguese Bend consists of eight geologic zones, not one. Attachments 1-73 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 16 hardscape and landscape areas, cumulative storm water run off, standards used for engineering the roads, etc. Please explain and justify the bases for the DEIR's conclusion that the drainage system is adequate for this proposed development 60 years later. (FEIR p. 8-55.) In response, the consultant repeated it admission that its statements about the 1949 "design" are based upon conjecture: [T]he City is not in possession of a plan for the subdivision and infrastructure of the Zone 2 area that specifically states which lots were accommodated in the plan for drainage. However, it may be reasonably assumed that the roads and drainage system were constructed to service all of the lots that were created with the subdivision. (FEIR p. 8-65 [emphasis added].) The consultant also errs in confusing Zone 2 with the greater Abalone Cove area, which encompasses Zone 2 and Zone 5. Although it says in two of the passages quoted above that the drainage system was designed for Zone 2 (FEIR pp. 4.8-1, 4.8-12), in fact the drainage system was designed (if it was "designed" at all) for Zone 2 and Zone 5 together. Zone 5 contains about 53 residential lots on 90 acres, bringing the total to 164 lots on 210 acres. The FEIR gives the effects on Zone 5 of runoff from Zone 2 minimal attention. Any analysis based solely on a calculation of 111 lots on 112 acres is invalid. Moreover, ifthere ever was a drainage system "design," it was made in 1949 at the time of the subdivision. (FEIR pp. 8-90, 8-204.) In 1949 there were no such concepts as "Zone 2" and "Zone 5," the Portuguese Bend and Abalone Cove Landslides had not yet occurred, and CEQA had not yet been enacted. No one could rationally rely today on a Attachments 1-74 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 17 hypothetical and anonymously-prepared 65-year-old "design" that no one has seen and that would be obsolete in any event because of later geologic events and legal enactments. These errors are exacerbated by the consultant's failure to consider extensive post- 1949 development above the Landslide Moratorium Area. Hardscape in those developments causes additional runoff to Zones 2 and 5 and Altamira Canyon, further making any reliance on hypothetical plans from 1949 improper. III. THE FEIR DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE ROADS IN ZONES 2 AND 5. A. Physical effects on the roads The Portuguese Bend Community Association criticized the DEIR for ignoring the impacts of the project on the roads within Portuguese Bend. The Association observed that the roads are fragile, that they were designed for far less traffic than they would experience if all the lots were developed, and that they already show signs of extra wear just from construction on four Monks lots: The DEIR has excluded the Portuguese Bend private roads from its study stating that any necessary upgrades would be the responsibility of the community. Any decision to allow additional development, bears with it, the responsibility to identify all impacts and identify feasible mitigation measures . The private roads within the Portuguese Bend community were designed and constructed in a time when families owned a single vehicle, service and construction equipment were smaller and lighter, and most homeowners did not have gardeners and other daily hired services. The community roads are not adequate to withstand the added daily volume that would be created by 4 7 additional residences and especially the tremendous volume of heavy construction traffic associated with those construction activities. Visual deterioration is evident just from the four projects started in the last year. Attachments 1-75 Mr. Eduardo Schonborn Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 18 (FEIR p. 8-10.) The consultant responded by acknowledging that it was not formally studying the impacts of wear and traffic within Portuguese Bend because the roads there are private: [N]one of the private roads within the Portuguese Bend area were formally analyzed in the Draft EIR because they are private roads and located outside of the jurisdiction of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes .... (FEIR p. 8-50.) (By "jurisdiction," the consultant apparently means "control," not "physical boundaries.") The consultant has erred in many critical respects in declining to evaluate this area of potential significant impacts. First, the enviromnental effects of a project that must be evaluated in an EIR are never limited to those occurring within the temporal or legal "jurisdiction" of the lead agency. Rather, "[t]he EIR shall ... analyze any significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people into the area affected." (14 Cal. Code Regs§ 15126.2(a) [emphases added].) In other words, it must address conditions "from both a local and regional perspective." (14 Cal. Code Regs§ 15125(a).) The temporal boundaries of Rancho Palos Verdes or its public road system are beside the point. Second, there is no exception under CEQA for the impact of a project on "private roads." In Masonite Corp. v. County of Mendocino (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 230, the project affected Kunzler Ranch Road, a "private road." (Id. at 233.) The court ordered the county to set aside its EIR and conduct a supplemental EIR addressing "the efficacy of the mitigation measures for truck traffic on Kunzler Ranch Road." (Id. at 242.) Attachments 1-76 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 19 Third, the consultant has made the same mistake it made regarding runoff by relying upon a hypothetical design prepared over half a century ago which neither the consultant nor anyone else has actually seen: It is important to note that the roadway system was originally engineered for full development and buildout of the residential tract and as such the street were designed to accommodate the envisioned loading, including construction vehicles associated with the construction of the envisioned buildout, as originally reviewed and approved by the County of Los Angeles. (FEIR p. 8-10 .) The consultant has never seen those plans, and they may not exist. Even if the consultant's speculation about engineering plans for Portuguese Bend as of 1949 were true, those plans could not have considered the effects of the following: • The Abalone Cove Landslide in the 1970s caused extensive damage to the roads in Zone 5.2 • Typical ownership of cars has increased from one per family in 1949 to one for each adult and many teenagers in 2014. (FEIR p. 8-10.) The consultant agrees that "conservatively estimated," there are two vehicles per residence. (Appendix G § 1.2.2 [no page number; p. 198 on .pdfversion].)3 2Exhibit 2 accompanying this letter consists of excerpts from testimony at the Monks trial establishing that the roads in Zone 5 are seriously cracked. The testimony at 3209:20-3211: 16 was by the City's geotechnical expert, Glenn Tofani. The testimony at 3474:8-3476 :24 was by Dr. Robert Douglas, a resident of Zone 2 and a Professor of Earth Science at the University of Southern California. (Monks v. City of Rancho Verdes, supra, 267 Cal.App.4th at 291.) The photographs under discussion are no longer readily available. 3 Appendix G, the traffic study, contains multiple sections with identical section numbers, and large passages without page numbers. In all citations to Appendix G the page number on the . pdf version is provided. These numbers are unrelated to any number actually appearing on the page. Attachments 1-77 Mr. Eduardo Schonborn Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 20 • Construction vehicles are heavier than they were in 1949. (Ibid.) • A far greater percentage of families in Portuguese Bend retain the services of gardeners, housekeepers, and other contractors today than did in 1949, and all of those non-residents use the roads. (Ibid.) Fourth, an analysis of impacts under CEQA must normally use existing conditions as a baseline: "An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project ... from both a local and regional perspective." (14 Cal. Code Regs§ 15125(a).) That means the EIR must "compare what will happen if the project is built with what will happen if the site is left alone." (Woodward Park Homeowners Assn. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 707.) The consultant therefore applied the wrong standard by evaluating the impacts of the project in comparison with its speculative understanding of the purpose for which "the roadway system was originally engineered." (FEIR p. 8-10.) The correct question is what will happen ifthe project is approved versus what is happening now, not what will happen if the project is approved versus what some unknown developer may have had in mind 65 years ago. B. Traffic Another problem regarding traffic is the FEIR's evaluation of the ability of residents to evacuate the area in the event of an emergency such as a wildfire. The FEIR anticipates that in an emergency, vehicles can leave Portuguese Bend and enter traffic on Palos Verdes Drive South through the Narcissa Drive gateway at a rate of about three vehicles per second and through the Peppertree Drive gateway at a rate of about 2.5 per Attachments 1-78 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April28,2014 page 21 second. (FEIR p. 4.10-25 and Appendix G Table 2 [no page number; page 202 on .pdf version].) In other words, it concludes that the entire population of Portuguese Bend, in 330 vehicles, can pass through the two gates in "1.1 minutes," or 66 seconds! (FEIR p. 4.10-25; Appendix G § 1.2.2 [no page number; page 199 on .pdfversion].) If there are construction vehicles exiting the area as well, the consultant estimates that the community's total evacuation time will be increased by a mere 18 seconds! Of course, while these vehicles are hurtling through the narrow gateways onto a crowded highway ·at these impossible rates, they will be competing for space with fire trucks and police vehicles going in the opposite direction. (Appendix G § 1.4 [no page number; page 200 on .pdfversion].) No one who has seen the "circuitous roadway[s]" in Portuguese Bend could consider this evaluation to be even remotely rational. (Appendix Gp. 13.) In reality, with everyone trying to leave at once in a charged emotional state, the meandering roads of Portuguese Bend will be hopelessly congested. The addition of 94 additional vehicles will make evacuation even more difficult and dangerous. (The projection of 94 additional vehicles is based on calculations at FEIR p. 8.10-25 and Appendix G § 1.2.2 [no page number; page 198 on .pdfversion].) The FEIR relies for its conclusions on the traffic study prepared by Linscot, Law & Greenspan ("LLG"). (FEIR p. 4.10-25, citing Appendix G.) However, the LLG study did not actually study traffic within Portuguese Bend. Rather, it focused solely on the two gateways leading from Portuguese Bend to Palos Verdes Drive South and on other major highways iri the general area but outside Portuguese Bend. (Appendix G pp. 3-4, 9-10 [pages 52-53 and 58-59 on .pdf version].) Thus, there was no consideration of actual Attachments 1-79 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 22 traffic conditions in Portuguese Bend at present or what the impact of 4 7 additional residences would be under ordinary circumstances or in the event of an emergency such as a wildfire. IV. FAILURE TO RESPOND TO COMMENTS BY ABALONE COVE LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT An FEIR must respond to public comments made about the DEIR. (Public Resources Code§ 2109l(d); 14 Cal. Code Regs§§ 15088(a), 15132.) The consultant has included and responded to many comments in § 8 of the FEIR, but it has neither included nor responded to important and timely comments made by the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District ("A CLAD") dated July 31, 2013. A copy of these comments accompanies this letter as Exhibit 1. The author of the A CLAD comments is Dr. Robert Douglas, Professor of Earth Science at the University of Southern California. (Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, supra, 267 Cal.App.4th at 291.) He explains, with greater clarity and understanding than I can, why the consultant's assumptions and conclusions regarding infiltration and runoff are invalid. I refer you to his letter and the photographs attached to it for a lucid and compelling discussion of this topic. V. MISINTERPRETATION OF THE MONKS DECISION The public comments included in § 8 of the FEIR reveal a lot of confusion about the meaning and scope of the Monks decision. The EIR consultant likewise errs in its understanding of the decision by stating the following: Attachments 1-80 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 23 The Draft EIR does not ignore the factor-of-safety (FOS) standard of 1.5. Because of the range of results in previous studies concerning the factor of safety for this area and the varying conclusions, and consistent with the [Monks] court decision to allow property owners the right to build on their properties, the Draft BIR reviews the subject area in terms of a significant threat to life, limb and property. (FEIR p. 8-6 [emphasis added].) The consultant misinterprets the Monks decision. (Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th 263.)4 The Monks decision did not invalidate the factor of safety standard of 1.5 in general. Rather, it stated that "We do not question the use or importance of factors of safety-as recognized by geotechnical professionals-in assessing whether land is suitable for residential construction." (Id. at 309.) It was only because of the unique circumstances of that lawsuit, in which the City had deprived the Monks plaintiffs' "land of all economically beneficial use" (id. at 270) in a recent enactment that the plaintiffs timely challenged (id. at 283-84), the City had to prove that the proposed development of the plaintiffs' lots would have been a public nuisance at common law. (Id. at 298-99, 305.) The Court of Appeal summarized the common-law standard as "a reasonable probability of significant harm." (Id. at 306.) The City was unable to prove this (id. at 305-309), so the Court of Appeal concluded the City had taken the plaintiffs' properties without compensation. (Id. at 309.) The City therefore had to buy the property at fair market value or allow development. The common-law public nuisance standard of "a reasonable probability of 4 The author of this letter was lead counsel for the Monks plaintiffs throughout that litigation. Attachments 1-81 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 24 significant hann" does not extend to the owners of the 31 non-Monks lots because they are not engaged in a timely judicial challenge to a recent enactment depriving them of the use of their property. The City deprived all 47 vacant lots of economic use when it enacted Resolution 2002-43 on May 20, 2002. The Monks plaintiffs sued within the 90- day limitations period. (Id. at 279, 283-84.) The owners of the other 31 lots did not, so they have no claim of a regulatory taking, and the Monks decision has no relevance to them. They are obliged to obtain development permits under whatever municipal restrictions are in effect now. Indeed, the Court of Appeal expressly limited its ruling to the sixteen Monks lots: [City expert geotechnical engineer Glenn] Tofani said that allowing construction on all 47 undeveloped lots "would have a tendency to further reduce the factor of safety." But that statement, without more, is not substantial evidence as to how or when the desired construction-on plaintiffs ' 16 lots-might affect anyone's health, safety, or property, if at all. (Id. at 308 [emphases in original].) The Court also emphasized that its ruling did not apply to the six vacant Zone 2 lots bordering Zone 5: [I]t appears that the [Zone 2] GPS stations that closely border the heads carp area of the [Abalone Cove landslide, near Zone 5] ... all exhibit slight instability and downslope movement when subject to a significant rainfall. ... [I]t appears that movement in the northern margin of the [Abalone Cove landslide] may influence the southern, or downslope, region of the Zone 2 landslide terrane [sic]. (Id. at 292 [quoting 2002 report by Cotton , Shires & Associates; brackets in original].) Tofani testified that a house would sustain significant structural damage in about a decade if it was close to the Attachments 1-82 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 25 uppermost part of a landslide or straddled a line demarking movement on one side and no movement on the other. None of plaintiffs' lots is anywhere near such an area .... (Id. at 306-307 [emphasis omitted].) The point of this demonstration is not to argue that any part of Zone 2 is susceptible to landsliding, but rather to show that the Court was addressing the plaintiffs' sixteen lots only and not all 47 vacant lots in Zone 2. CONCLUSION The proposed project as outlined and defended in the FEIR suffers from multiple infirmities: • It defers the detennination of what impacts are "significant" and how they are to be mitigated by delegating the task to a host of staff members and consultants with overlapping and uncoordinated authority. · • It provides those staff members and consultants with insufficient guidance for exercising their judgment. • It provides no means of determining if the mitigation measures that staff and the consultants devise are successful. • It is based on speculation about "plans" and "designs" that some unknown person may or may not have devised in the middle of the last century. • It disregards the effects of extensive post-1949 development above Portuguese Bend. • It anticipates an ambitious and improbable goal of absolutely no additional runoff without a concrete explanation of how it will be achieved or confirmed. Attachments 1-83 Mr. Eduardo Schonbom Re: PBCA comments on FEIR April 28, 2014 page 26 •It pays inadequate attention to the effects of the project on Zone 5. • It refuses to consider traffic and physical impacts on the roads of Portuguese Bend although it is required by law to do so. • Its projections about evacuating Portuguese Bend in an emergency are unfounded and impossible!. Any of these deficiencies would make the FEIR the likely subject of a judicial challenge. In their entirety, it is hard to imagine a court sustaining it. We urge the City Council not to adopt this document. Very truly yours, Stuart Miller Attachments 1-84 1 Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District (ACLAD) A State of California Geohazard District PMB 169-P.O. Box 7000 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 (310) 787-7111, x3 FAX (310) 787-7193 To: Joel Rojas, Director, Community Development Department, City of RPV From: Robert Douglas, Chairman, Board of Directors, ACLAD Date: July 31, 2013 cc: Eduardo Schonborn, Planning Division, Community Development Department, City of RPV Subject: Follow-up to the Draft EIR for the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revision for Zone 2 INTRODUCTION In an earlier memorandum (Miscellaneous Document, November 16, 2012) ACLAD concluded after reviewing the Geology (including appendix D, Geotechnical Study) and Hydrology and Water Quality sections of the draft EIR for Zone 2 that there were important issues that were not fully addressed in the report. In reviewing the most recent draft EIR, we continue to have concerns that important issues are either not adequately addressed or are based on incorrect assumptions that alter the significance of the impacts. We address two issues: Flooding/ Hydrology and Geology FLOOD /HYDROLOGY Current Storm Drain System The present storm drain system in Zone 2 and adjacent areas (shown below) is taken from the Draft EIR section on flooding and hydrology, figure 4.8-1. The storm drain system shown in red on the map is based on the City of RPV 2004 revised edition of the city’s storm drains. Unfortunately, as shown it is incomplete and only covers the west side of the community. The Attachments 1-85 2 Draft EIR illustration omits the storm drain system in the rest of Zone 2, mostly the east side. In blue is the rest of the system covering Vanderlip Drive, upper Narcissa Drive, lower Cinnamon Lane, Sweetbay Road and lower Narcissa within the Abalone Cove landslide, all of which are important in conveying storm water runoff into Altamira Canyon. Also note that the 300 feet of Altamira Canyon located between the end of the culvert exiting Fig Tree Road and the 120” CMP culvert at the entrance (beneath the park) is included in the City/EIR’s storm drain system. It is important to recognize the complete system because all of the streets and culverts in the community are involved in conveying storm water runoff from houses and open lots into Altamira Canyon. All parts of the system are important and must function successfully in order to prevent flooding and the type of problems that have plagued the community for years. The storm drainage system in Zone 2 and adjacent areas. Outlined in red is the system illustrated in the revised Draft EIR report (fig. 4.8-1). Shown in blue is the rest of the functioning storm drain system in Zone 2 and adjacent community. Attachments 1-86 3 Under-capacity of the Current Drainage System, Flooding and increased Infiltration In the Conclusions and Recommendations (p.7), the EIR states that “flood/hydrology impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project would: 1. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drain storm water drainage systems 2. Increase infiltration which could affect the stability of existing landslides in the project vicinity.” ACLAD believes that both statements are in fact correct and therefore each one constitutes a significant impact. In section A we present evidence of the inadequacies of the storm drain system and in section B discuss the impact of runoff on groundwater infiltration: Section A A.1 Under-capacity of the Existing Storm Drain System In the EIR, the hydrologic analyses determined that post-development conditions would result in an increase in storm drain runoff as a result of the increase in impervious area that would occur when the 47 lots are developed. However, they conclude that the combined impact from the development is insignificant for the following reason:  The existing (natural) drainage patterns are maintained and the combination of natural and constructed drainage conveyance and the surface flow has the capacity to convey the runoff from the project site The EIR report assumes that because the current drainage system has existed for many years that it is adequate to convey rainfall runoff. This assumption is incorrect and in fact the system does not have the capacity to convey storm runoff from the project area in major rain storms. Background: The EIR states that the “existing drainage system was designed for the entire Portuguese Bend development, including the 47 undeveloped lots”. Unfortunately, this is an overstatement. The storm drain system in Zone 2 is the streets in the community, with a few culverts that help convey storm water into Altamira Canyon. Based on aerial photos taken in the l920s and 30s, the main streets in Zone 2 are simply the paved over dirt roads established by farmers early in the 20th century and later addition and modification to the streets was for development in the 1940-l950s. The current street “system” is primarily to provide access to the community. Attachments 1-87 4 The inadequacy of the streets as a storm drain system was recognized in the past when significant flood events occurred in the community during the heavy rains of the late l970s and early l980s. Following reactivation of the Abalone Cove landslide, the Panel of Experts recommended upgrading the culverts and other In 1990 ASL Consulting Engineers recommended eight major improvements to upgrading the storm drain system (left) but only two minor modifications to the then existing system were made and the system today remains basically as it was in pre- 1990. parts of the system to achieve better control of storm water runoff. In 1990 ASL consulting Engineers was retained by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of RPV to perform hydrology and hydraulic studies to determine the storm runoff for the area located in the Altamira Canyon watershed. The area they studied is the same as in the current EIR report. At the request of the City, the study examined the effects of runoff from storms having a probability of recurring once in 50 year and 100 year. The study highlighted serious deficiencies in the then existing storm runoff system and made recommendations to improve it. Except for a few modifications, the recommendations were never implemented and the system remains a slightly modified version of 1990. It is basically a make-do series of paved streets with berms added over the years to bandage the biggest problems. The major problems occur during major storms when rainfall exceeds 0.5 in/hr and storm totals are over 6 in/24 hours. During these rain storms such as occurred in 2005 and 2010, storm water fills and overflows the streets, causing significant local flooding and erosion. The development of the 47 lots will, as stated in the analyses, increase storm water runoff from individual lots by 10-15% and for the project by 2.9-4.5%. There is good reason to believe that this increase will be the proverbial straw to an already over burdened/under- capacity system. (see Appendix A, For photographic examples of the problems and deficiencies in the storm drain system during the major storms of 2005 and 2010.) Attachments 1-88 5 A.2 Unresolved drainage problems There are two unresolved drainage problems that have affected the project area for many years and impact the adequacy of the current system. Both are old, natural drainage channels which collect rain water from upslope areas above Zone 2. They can be identified in old topographic maps, aerial photos and surface photographs and were never adequately addressed in development of the storm drain system. During major rain storms storm water flows through the channels, spills out on to adjacent lots (e.g. in 2005 and 2010; see photos in Appendix A) and causes local flooding and erosion. Both channels cross open, undeveloped lots and should be addressed before development of the lots. The location of old, natural drainage channels (shown in blue) which drain upslope areas and convey surface runoff water in major rain storm events. Channel 1 drains subarea 143C (48.3 acres), and in some years, portions of 142C (23.3 acres) (see EIR fig 4.8-1 for location of subareas), the area generally south of the old Crenshaw Extension and Channel 2 drains upslope areas north of upper Cinnamon Road, subarea 154B (7.7 acres). Letters identify location of the photographs shown below. According to the hydrology calculations in the draft EIR, area 1, subarea 143C has a runoff potential (QB) of 122 cubic feet per second (cfs) and in excess of an estimated 200 cfs when storm water drainage from 142C jumps Crenshaw Extension and flows into subarea 143C. Area 2 drains subarea 154B and has a QB of 22.8 cfs. Attachments 1-89 6 A.2.1 Natural drainage channel at Location 1 which drains subarea 143C and in some years, portions of subarea 142C and conveys storm water to Altamira Canyon Aerial photograph of a portion of the Zone 2 area taken in l955, prior to development on Narcissa Drive, showing the drainage channels. White “scar” in the upper part of the photo is the early excavation for the Crenshaw extension. Location 1a, (left) drainage ditch cut into the slope to direct water into the inlet (lower right) to the culvert that runs under upper Narcissa Drive. Sheet flow from upslope areas overflowed the ditch and culvert and flooded Narcissa Lane during high rainfall years in the 1990s (e.g. 1995, 1998) and 2000s (2001, 2005, 2010). In the February, 2005 storm runoff that originated in the area north of Peacock Flats, flowed (raced) down the Crenshaw Extension dirt road, jumping the road at the sharp curve east of Kelvin Canyon and flowed down the slope above Narcissa Drive. The storm water flooded upper Narcissa Drive and over whelmed the channels between Narcissa and Sweetbay Road. Attachments 1-90 7 1b Channels crossing the open lots north of Sweetbay. The northern (left) channel was over two feet deep and conveyed a stream with 6-8 inches of water following the winter storm of 2005. In the area in the immediate foreground, next to Sweetbay Road, water ponds during storms and overflows onto the road. The two channels merge into one under the vegetation in the distance and eventually connect to the culvert that crosses Narcissa Drive (see 1a). Disking the fields for weed control has partially filled in the channels over the years. (left) The California Water Service water main exposed by erosion in the northern channel following the 2005 storm (it remains exposed today). 1c (right) Storm water flows (west) across Sweetbay Road and exists at the trees ( 1c) into the continuation of the old channel. Storm water eventually flows into Altamira Canyon Attachments 1-91 8 A.2.2 Natural drainage channel at Location 2, draining subarea 154B, and extending from upper Cinnamon to the five-point intersection to Sweetbay Road and Altamira Canyon Path of the drainage channel which begins above upper Cinnamon and extends across 5-point intersection (a) , through the corral at “Right to Fly” and across the open lots (b) to the King property (c) that at Sweetbay Road , crosses another horse corral and finally empties into Altamira Canyon. 2a Five-point intersection (view looking north) of Narcissa (right to left), Cinnamon (north to south) and Ginger Root Lane (off photo to the lower left). Originally, storm water drained down upper Cinnamon (towards the viewer), crossed Narcissa and exited to the right by the stop sign. A culvert (now buried) extends under Narcissa to convey the flow. Storm water continues across the horse corral of “Ride-to-fly” and then into a channel which crosses open lots before eventually exiting into Altamira Canyon south of Sweetbay Road. Because of repeated flooding, the roads at the intersection were re-pitched to force storm water to flow across the intersection and down Ginger Root Lane. During major storms, storm water splits at the intersection, part flowing along the course of the old channel and part down Ginger Root Lane. Attachments 1-92 9 2b Portions of the channel which extends from the corral at “Ride to Fly” (left) behind the houses which front onto Sweetbay Road and to the King property at Sweetbay Road. 2b Flooded backyards of the houses adjacent to the channel when the channel overflowed in the winter storm of 2005. 2c (below) The continuation of the channel shown in 2b across the King lot at 24 Sweetbay Road, today (left) and flooded in the winter storm of 2005 (right) . Attachments 1-93 10 2c Continuation of the channel, today(left) and flooded during the winter storm of 2005 (right). To the left of this channel (towards Sweetbay Road) is located dewatering well WW 13 which was partially flooded by overflow water which flowed as a sheet across the lot to Sweetbay Road (below). Storm water from the channel (above) which overflowed onto Sweetbay Road (in the background)at 24 Sweetbay Road. 2c Detail of the 15” CMP culvert (usually filled) that drains from the King lot, under the adjacent property and empties directly into the horse corral at 22 Sweetbay Road. During major winter rain storms the corral floods before the water flow exits into Sweetbay Road and Altamira Canyon. Attachments 1-94 11 B. Increased infiltration The EIR analysis indicates that “the addition of impervious areas (new houses) will reduce the total infiltration in the project site and due to the low permeability of the soils and steepness of the canyon sides, for a given storm event, the total infiltration will not exceed the existing condition”. This hardly seems possible when, as the analyses states, more runoff water will be entering the streets with the development of the 47 lots and, eventually, into Altamira Canyon. Studies (Hill, 2000; Hill, et al, 2007) reveal that the infiltration in the bottom of Altamira Canyon is one of the major sources of recharging the groundwater. The photos below, taken about 15-20 minutes apart in December 2010, illustrate the problem: On the left is storm water discharging from the 120” CMP culvert in Altamira Canyon at the crossing with upper Storm water discharge in Altamira Canyon, December 2010. Both photos were taken on the same day, the one on the left is discharge from the 120” CMP at upper Narcissa Drive and taken about 15-20 minutes earlier than the one on the right which is in Altamira Canyon at the inlet to the 120” CMP that extends under the park at the entrance. The two sites are about 0.6 miles apart. Narcissa Drive. The flow is estimated at several hundred cubic feet per second. The photo on the right, taken 15-20 minutes later is the flow in Altamira Canyon at the inlet to the 120” CPM that extends under Narcissa Drive near the entrance to the community. Where did the discharge water go? It infiltrated into the bottom of the canyon between upper Narcissa and the entrance, especially where the head scarp of Abalone Cove landslide and other major fractures cross the canyon. About 60-70% of the flow infiltrated over a distance of approximately 0.6 miles. Along that distance there are other sources of runoff water, from the Fig Tree Road drain (which drains all of the west side of the community) and tributaries entering the Altamira Canyon south of Sweetbay Road. Hill (2000) found that between 1-18% of the storm water discharge measured at the culvert at Sweetbay Road exited into the ocean. Her measurements and later ones collected by ACLAD, suggest that between 55 to 75% of the Attachments 1-95 12 discharge water in Altamira Canyon is infiltrating into the bottom of the canyon to recharge the ground water. Even small increases in the rain storm runoff entering the street storm-drain system are important as they ultimately feed into the ground water. SLOPE-STABILITY AND LANDSLIDE MOVEMENT The draft EIR report (based primarily on the Geology in the LGC Valley report) concludes that development of the 47 undeveloped lots within Zone 2 will not have a negative effect on the overall stability of the landslides, ancient and active provided that development of the lots is within the guidelines and conditions set by the City of RPV. They believe that the greatest threat to Zone 2 is the potential loss of lateral upslope support due to movement within the ACL and PBL. ACLAD is in general agreement with this conclusion but cautions that the older pre-2007 GPS data upon which their conclusion is based are of varying data quality. Since McGee Surveying began working with ACLAD and the City of RPV to improve and expand the GPS network in 2007, there has been a marked improvement in the GPS survey results. Damage or disturbances to monuments and errors in data collection and analysis have been Distribution of the GPS stations in Zone 2 and adjacent areas (upper left). Of interest is the slow movement in the upslope area north of the Abalone Cove landslide, shown in cumulative movement in the seven northern stations (upper right graph) and contoured as “extremely slow and very slow” in the map that summarizes the GPS results of the past 19 years. Attachments 1-96 13 eliminated. These results show that all of Zone 2 and adjacent areas, with the exception of the area north of the anticline beneath Peacock Flats (CR50,51,52) and west of Fruit Tree Lane (AB17) are steadily creeping south-southeast at tenths to hundredths of a foot per year. It is safe to say that the entire area is undergoing slow movement and has been since the GPS network was installed and probably for much longer. Because most of these stations are located on fairly flat terrain, except for CR07 (located on Crenshaw Extension, next to Portuguese Canyon) the movement does not appear to be slope creep but rather primary movement. This interpretation indicates that the area, including portions of the Ancient Altamira landslide have minimum stability and by definition the FOS for the area is not greater than 1.0. The problem with slow moving landslides is that it takes decades to recognize and adequately diagnosis the level of instability. But, as illustrated by the Portuguese Bend landslide, they can be reactivated rather quickly (months) and once reactivated, the landslides have proven essentially impossible to stop. Attachments 1-97 ACLAD Appendix A-misc doc. 06-13 1 Appendix A: Photographic evidence of problems with the Storm Drain System Flooding: The existing storm drain system in the Zone 2 area is inadequate to handle storm water runoff during major storms. Local flooding is a typical problem. a. A key storm drain is located at the junction of Cinnamon and Narcissa. This drain conveys all of the storm water from the west side of the community that drains from upper Cinnamon, upper Narcissa and Ginger Root to the Fig Tree drain and Altamira Canyon. The photos illustrate problems in the system during major storms in 2005 and 2010. (Photos courtesy of Cassie Jones, Lewis Enstedt, Gary Stokoe and Robert Douglas). Storm drain (today) at the junction of Cinnamon and Narcissa showing the inlet (arrow) to the 42” CMP that conveys water to the Fig Tree Road drain. Storm water is supposed to be captured by this inlet and not flow further down Narcissa Drive. Same location as above during the winter storm of 2005. Note that sheet flow flooding the street and (1) water overflowing and bypassing the inlet allowing water to flow further down Narcissa (2) and that the inlet to the culvert is filled (3) and overflowing. Attachments 1-98 ACLAD Appendix A-misc doc. 06-13 2 b. Flooding and overflow on upper Narcissa Drive. Street flooding in the storm of 2010 at upper Narcissa Lane, looking west from 76 Narcissa. Flooding of dewatering well WW 15 along upper Narcissa during the winter 2010 storm. Flooding at 60 Narcissa Drive during the winter storm of 2010. Shortly before this photo was taken storm water was overflowing Narcissa Drive and flowing down the driveway to the house. Note sand bags placed across the driveway in an attempt to impede the storm water. Attachments 1-99 ACLAD Appendix A-misc doc. 06-13 3 Flooding at the intersection of Vanderlip Road and Narcissa Drive. The storm drain inlet was plugged with mud and debris conveyed down Vanderlip Drive. Flooding during the same storm as above, looking west from 80 Narcissa. Because of the low gradient in the street, in major storms the runoff which comes from houses on the street and sheet flow from the adjacent open slopes in the PV Peninsula Land Conservancy land exceeds the capacity of the system. The water which overflows the berm (left side of the photo) floods the adjacent open lots. Attachments 1-100 ACLAD Appendix A-misc doc. 06-13 4 c. Flooding at the intersection of Narcissa and Ginger Root and sheet flow from the PB Riding Club. Entrance to the Riding Club at the corner of Ginger Root Lane and Narcissa Drive ((left, today) and during typical storm flooding. During heavy rain storms runoff from the corrals and open space in the Club exists through the gate and contributes to flooding on Narcissa Drive and the overload at the Cinnamon-Narcissa culvert. Note the sand bags that have been placed at the gate in an attempt to control the storm runoff and the gravel which it carries onto Narcissa Drive. Flooding at the intersection of Ginger Root Lane and Narcissa Drive, looking SW, with the Riding Club entrance gate just off to the right. Note that the road berm is completely submerged. Attachments 1-101 ACLAD Appendix A-misc doc. 06-13 5 . Heavy runoff flow on Ginger Root Lane following flooding conditions d. Flooding along lower Narcissa due to reverse gradient in the street. Two views of lower Narcissa which attempt to capture the reverse in the street gradient as it approaches the entrance to the community. Due to landslide movement, the original street gradient has been reversed and runoff water must flow “uphill” before entering the street culvert that empty into the 120” CMP culvert in Altamira Canyon. During major storms, storm runoff ponds along the street and then flows off-road and floods the depression where dewater well WW 2 is located (below) and creates a settling pond. Attachments 1-102 ACLAD Appendix A-misc doc. 06-13 6 Storm water from Narcissa Drive which overflowed the berm and flooded the depression containing dewatering well WW2. Attachments 1-103 3 11 5 1 CASE NUMBER: YS010425 2 CASE NAME: MONK VS. RANCHO PALOS VERDES 3 TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2007 4 DEPARTMENT SW E HON . CARY NISHIMOTO, JUDGE 5 REPORTER: DARCY S. SENFF, CSR NO. 11953 6 TIME: A.M. SESSION 7 8 APPEARANCES: 9 (AS HERETOFORE NOTED) 10 11 12 13 14 15 THE COURT: OH, ALL RIGHT. MR. WELLMAN. GLEN TOFANI, HAVING PREVIOUSLY BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 16 CROSS-EXAMINATION RESUMED 17 BY MR. WELLMAN: 18 19 20 Q A Q GOOD MORNING, MR. TOFANI. GOOD MORNING. YESTERDAY I WAS GOING OVER YOUR CHRONOLOGY OF 21 KEY EVENTS. YOU RECALL THAT? 22 A YES. 23 Q AND I THINK THAT I FINISHED ON THE COTTON 24 LANGUAGE, AND THEN WHERE I POINTED OUT THAT PART OF THE 25 LANGUAGE WAS IN BUT SOME WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE 26 CHRONOLOGY. DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY? 27 A I RECALL DISCUSSING THE COTTON REPORT AND THEIR 28 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL TESTING, YES. Attachments 1-104 __) 3209 1 A I DID NOT KNOW THAT, NO. 2 Q DID YOU KNOW THAT DAVID CUMMINGS WAS THE PAID 3 CONSULTANT FOR PERONA, LANGER, AND BECK FOR THESE 4 PLAINTIFFS BACK THEN? 5 A I THINK YOU ASKED ME THAT EARLIER, AND, NO, I 6 WASN'T AWARE OF THAT. '/ Q CAN YOU THINK OF ANY REASON WHY MR. CUMMINGS 8 WOULD BE DIRECTING THIS STATEMENT TO A LAW FIRM AS 9 OPPOSED TO THE CITY? 10 MR. RICHARDS: SPECULATION. NO FOUNDATION. 11 THE COURT: SUSTAINED. 12 Q BY MR. WELLMAN: THIS STATEMENT WASN'T DIRECTED 13 TO THE CITY, WAS IT? 14 MR. RICHARDS: SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. 15 THE COURT: WELL, IF THE WITNESS HAS PERSONAL 16 INFORMATION, HE CAN ANSWER. 17 Q BY MR. WELLMAN: DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION 18 THAT THIS STATEMENT WAS DIRECTED TO THE CITY? 19 20 A Q I DO NOT KNOW IF IT WAS GIVEN TO THE CITY. LET'S LOOK AT THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH YOU HAVE 21 IDENTIFIED AS 289. CAN YOU TAKE THOSE OUT? 22 23 A Q YES. NOW, YOU SAID IN REDIRECT THAT YOU THOUGHT 24 THESE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWED CRACKS IN THE ROAD IN ZONE 5 AND 25 ZONE 2; CORRECT? 26 A YES. AND NORTHERN --CENTRAL TO NORTHERN 27 PORTIONS OF ZONE 5 AND THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF ZONE 2. 28 Q CAN YOU SHOW ME WHICH PICTURE OF THIS 289 SHOWS Attachments 1-105 ,. -.\ I ( ... ) 3210 1 CRACKS IN ZONE 2? 2 A I BELIEVE, FOR EXAMPLE, LOOKING AT PHOTO 34 3 WHICH SHOWS A CRACK AND CLOSER UP VIEW OF THAT CRACK IN 4 35 AND 36, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE WITHIN ZONE 2. 5 ALTHOUGH I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK OUR SITE PLAN TO CONFIRM 6 THAT. 7 Q CAN YOU DO THAT, PLEASE. 8 A YES. 9 IN LOOKING AT OUR SITE PLAN, I WOULD SAY 10 THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN VERY CLOSE TO THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN 11 ZONE 2 AND ZONE 5. 12 13 14 15 Q ISN'T IT TAKEN RIGHT HERE WHERE NARCISSA MEET. A IT'S LOOKING TOWARD THAT INTERSECTION, BUT THE INTERSECTION ISN'T VISIBLE IN THE PHOTO. SO IT'S TAKEN FURTHER UP NARCISSA DRIVE JUST PRIOR TO THE START OF THE 16 BEND UP NEAR AB-16. 17 18 Q A SO YOU THINK IT'S UP HERE? I THINK IT'S TAKEN UP IN THAT AREA, YES. 19 I COULDN'T TELL YOU IF IT WAS ON THE EXTREME 20 NORTH SIDE OF ZONE 5 OR THE SOUTH SIDE OF ZONE 2. 21 Q SO YOU'RE NOT SURE WHETHER IT WAS ZONE 2 OR 22 ZONE 5? 23 A IT PROBABLY SHOWS BOTH PORTIONS OF BOTH ZONE 2 24 AND ZONE 5. 25 Q IT SAYS LOOKING SOUTH ALONG NARCISSA? 26 A YES. 27 Q THIS IS NOT --THIS IS NARCISSA. SO IT'S 28 LOOKING HERE, AND THEY'RE STANDING RIGHT AT THE CURVE, Attachments 1-106 321 1 .... ·~ 1 RIGHT AT THE BEND; RIGHT? 2 A STANDING LOOKING TOWARDS THE BEND JUST BEFORE 3 THE BEND. 4 Q SO IT WOULD BE UP IN HERE? 5 A BE VERY CLOSE TO WHERE THE TIP OF THE STICK 6 WAS, YES. 7 Q AT ANY RATE ALL THE OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS ARE ALL 8 IN ZONE 5; CORRECT? 9 A YES, I THINK SO. 10 Q OKAY. SO OTHER THAN POTENTIALLY ONE PICTURE, 11 WHICH IS NUMBER 34, WHICH YOU'RE NOT SURE, UP HERE 12 SOMEWHERE, THERE WERE NO PHOTOGRAPHS IN EXHIBIT 289 THAT 13 SHOW CONDITIONS IN ZONE 2? ("_) 14 15 A OTHER THAN THE SERIES THAT BEGINS WITH 34, THERE'S SEVERAL PHOTOGRAPHS THERE OF THE SAME CRACK, BUT 16 YES. 17 34 IS AN OVERVIEW. 35 IS A CLOSER-UP VIEW 18 OF THE SAME CRACK, AS IS 36. 19 Q OKAY. NOW, DURING REDIRECT YOU SHOWED THIS 20 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AB-18 MONUMENT? 21 A YES. 22 Q WHAT NUMBER WAS THAT? 23 A I DON'T KNOW, BUT I CAN FIND IT FOR YOU. 24 GK-25. 25 Q IN THIS YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT 26 BECAUSE THE TRENCHING CRACK IS ON THIS SIDE, YOU WOULD . ) , . ·· .......... 27 28 EXPECT THE MONUMENT TO BE SKEWED TOWARDS THE CRACK; RIGHT? Attachments 1-107 I _) 3437 1 TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2007 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1:43 P.M. SESSION DEPARTMENT SW-E HON. CARY H. NISHIMOTO, JUDGE (APPEARANCES AS NOTED ON TITLE PAGE.) (CHANDRA R. KINCAID, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) THE COURT: WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. YOU'RE MR. DOUGLAS? THE WITNESS: YES, I AM. THE COURT: IF YOU'LL KINDLY STAND RIGHT WHERE YOU 11 ARE. 12 AND FACE THE CLERK AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT 13 HAND AND TAKE THE OATH. 14 15 ROBERT DOUGLAS, 16 CALLED BY THE PLAINTIFFS AS A WITNESS ON REBUTTAL, WAS 17 SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 18 THE CLERK: DO YOU SOLEMNLY STATE THAT THE 19 TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE 20 THIS COURT SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND 21 NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? 22 23 THE WITNESS: I DO. THE CLERK: WOULD YOU TAKE THE WITNESS STAND, 24 PLEASE, OR HAVE A SEAT. 25 WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, 26 PLEASE, AND THEN SPELL YOUR ENTIRE NAME. 27 28 THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS ROBERT DOUGLAS. R-0-B-E-R-T, D-0-U-G-L-A-S. Attachments 1-108 0 3474 1 HOW MUCH RAINFALL THERE IS ON AVERAGE IN ITS DISTRICT AND 2 IN THE SURROUNDING WATER SHED? 3 A NO, BUT THERE IS A WATER COLLECTOR METER. 4 MR. RICHARDS: OBJECTION. 5 MOVE TO STRIKE EVERYTHING. 6 THE COURT: STRICKEN. 7 Q BY MR. MILLER: FINAL TOPIC, SIR. 8 I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN 9 MARKED AS EXHIBIT, I BELIEVE, 289. THIS IS A SERIES OF 10 PHOTOGRAPHS THAT MR. TOFANI GAVE US. I'M GOING TO DIRECT 11 YOUR ATTENTION TO PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER 34 WHICH IS LABELED 12 LOOKING SOUTH ALONG NARCISSA TOWARDS CINNAMON. 13 DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS A PICTURE OF, SIR? 14 15 16 A Q A YES, I DO. WHAT IS IT A PICTURE OF? IT IS A PICTURE ON CINNAMON LANE RIGHT IN 17 FRONT OF JIM KNIGHT'S HOUSE. 18 MR. MILLER: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE A SET OF THREE 19 PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH I'VE MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION 297-A, 20 -B AND -C. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. MILLER: WHICH COUNSEL HAS AND THE CLERK HAS. MR. RICHARDS: I'LL OBJECT. I SAW THEM FOR THE FIRST TIME FIVE MINUTES AGO. THEY'RE NOT ON THE WITNESS LIST. THEY WEREN'T SHOWN TO ME AHEAD OF TIME. THEY'RE NOT EXHIBITS THAT WE WERE NOTIFIED OF NOR INFORMED OF. Attachments 1-109 ·-) 3475 1 THE COURT: WELL, IF THEY'RE REBUTTAL, THEN I'LL 2 OVERRULE THE OBJECTION. 3 DID YOU GIVE THE CLERK -- 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MR. MILLER: YES, SIR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. (MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION, PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBITS 297-A, -B, AND -C, PHOTOGRAPHS.) Q BY MR. MILLER: HERE YOU ARE, DR. DOUGLAS. 12 WOULD YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST ONE, PLEASE, 13 MARKED 297-A . 14 15 16 17 18 TAKEN? 19 20 21 22 YOU. 23 24 25 26 A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A YES. WHAT ts THAT A PICTURE OF? THE SAME LOCATION AS SHOWN HERE. AND DO YOU KNOW WHEN THIS PICTURE WAS YES. WHEN? THIS WAS TAKEN ON SUNDAY. I WAS WITH AND WOULD YOU LOOK AT PICTURE -B, PLEASE. YES. DOES THAT SHOW THE SAME CRACK? YES, IT DOES. THAT SHOWS THE DRIVEWAY IN 27 FRONT OF JIM KNIGHT'S HOUSE. 28 Q DO YOU SEE IN FRONT OF --NEXT TO THE Attachments 1-110 \. ... ) " ) ... 3476 1 DRIVEWAY, THERE'S A SERIES OF STEPS? 2 A YES. 3 Q TO THE LEFT OF THOSE THERE IS WHAT LOOKS 4 LIKE A SMALL SIGN? 5 6 7 8 9 10 A Q A Q A Q YES. WOULD YOU LOOK AT PICTURE -C, PLEASE. YES. IS THAT THE SAME SIGN? IT IS. AND WOULD YOU APPROACH THIS EXHIBIT, 11 PLEASE, AND TAKE ONE OF THESE GREEN DOTS AND SHOW US 12 WHERE THIS LOCATION IS, PLEASE. 13 14 15 A IT'S RIGHT THERE. Q THANK YOU. THE COURT: THE WITNESS HAS PLACED THE GREEN DOT 16 IN ZONE 5. 17 M~. MILLER: YES, YOUR HONOR. IT'S IN ZONE 5. 18 Q BY MR. MILLER: AND SO THE INSCRIPTION ON 19 PHOTOGRAPH 34 SAYING THAT THAT'S ON NARCISSA IS 20 INCORRECT; IS THAT RIGHT? 21 A THAT IS NOT CORRECT. 22 Q IT'S ON CINNAMON? 23 A IT'S ON CINNAMON LOOKING TOWARDS 24 NARCISSA. 25 MR. MILLER: EXCUSE ME ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, YOUR 26 HONOR. 27 Q BY MR. MILLER: DOES ACLAD -- 28 MR. MILLER: IF I MAY, YOUR HONOR, ANOTHER MINUTE . Attachments 1-111 WEBER CONSULTING P.O. BOX 7, IDYLLWILD, CA 92549-0007 951-659-5544 TEL GSWEBERCONSULTJNG@GMAIL.COM April 21, 2014 Mr. Joel Rojas, AICP City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: ZONE 2 -LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM ORDINANCE REVISIONS Dear Mr. Rojas: VIA E-MAIL This letter is submitted on behalf of Mr. Jack Downhill, who owns a 6.94 acre parcel at 20 Vanderlip Drive. He acquired the property long before the concept of Landslide Zones was proposed by Dr. Ehlig in 1993. This letter is intended to augment other communications submitted by Mr. Downhill. As you know, the "Guidelines" for Landslide Zones recommended by Dr. Ehlig in his May 26, 1993 memorandum established the underlying principles for the Landslide Zones. He provided a relatively detailed background and rationale for permitting development in the Moratorium Area. This important document is often overlooked when discussing development in Zone 2. Dr. Ehlig concluded that lots in Zone 2 "could be developed without adversely affecting the stability of the large ancient landslide" subject to certain "guidelines". A copy of Dr. Ehlig's memorandum is attached for your reference. Since acquiring the property in 1968, Mr. Downhill has envisaged subdividing this property. However, since the adoption of the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance in 1978, Mr. Downhill's efforts to subdivide have been thwarted by regulatory impediments that preclude utilizing this "underdeveloped" property to the fullest extent. With the Superior Court's decision in the Monks case, Mr. Downhill believed that the Moratorium Ordinance would be amended to remove jurisdictional impediments and return property rights to all owners. The current Ordinance revisions have been crafted to allow a select group of Zone 2 owners the ability to develop their prope1ties, however, it falls short of treating all Zone 2 owners equally. Mr. Downhill's property exhibits virtually identical physical, environmental and jurisdictional characteristics and constraints as the 47 prope1ties that have been selected to be part of the Ordinance revisions. The City's decision to treat the Downhill property differently than the select 4 7 lots is fundamentally wrong. Treating the Downhill property differently than the select 47 lots is no different than treating the 16 Monks properties differently than the 31 vacant lots. The decision to only address the smaller 47 lots is not consistent with the stated goal to broaden the scope of the "Moratorium Exception" process. The FEIR confirms that there are virtually no differences between the select 47 lots and the larger properties, nor are there discernible increased impacts if the larger lots are permitted to use the same Ordinance revisions. It is unfortunate that the Downhill property is not identified as "underdeveloped' (a term used in the FEIR), which, by any reasonable standard, is the case here. In July 2012, Mr. Downhill filed a Moratorium Exclusion Application (ZON2012-00232) for the prope1ty. The LME application requests to subdivide the 6.94 acre lot into four lots, rather than the six that are statistically possible. Subsequent to the submittal of this request, Mr. Downhill was advised by letter (8/10/12) to "submit all appropriate geotechnical reports and studies that address the property's I Attachments 1-112 specific geological conditions to support the requested exclusion. Note that the City Geologist will review the information on behalf of the City to ensure that the information is adequate to support the requested exclusion and that the City will not deem this application complete until the City Geologist approves the required geological reports". Based on past experience with the City Geologist's requirements for Moratorium Exclusion, the level of study required will far exceed the level of data required for the 16 Monks lots or the 31 other Zone 2 lots. While we understand the logic, it is an oppressive requirement that other Zone 2 owners won't be required to meet. We don't believe it is the City's intent to treat a property owner differently than others in the same neighborhood, but that will be outcome of this Ordinance revision, if adopted as proposed. It's important to point out that the Downhill property has had significantly more on-site geology investigation conducted than most (perhaps all) of the select 47 lots that are the subject of this Ordinance revision. For example, at least 4 deep borings have been drilled on the Downhill property and several more nearby. The most recent subsurface investigation was a 297 foot deep core boring drilled on the Downhill property by ACLAD to confirm the local geology, as well as the possibility of implementing a monitoring well. Previously, in 1968-9, Moore and Taber conducted comprehensive subsurface investigations on the Downhill property and throughout Portuguese Bend. The Moore and Taber study concluded " that the factor of safety for most of the ancient slides are significantly and possibly substantially greater than one." This is consistent with EIR findings. Another issue often expressed by opponents to allowing any new homes in Portuguese Bend is that the sewer system and drainage system are not designed to accommodate any additional homes. We fundamentally disagree. It is standard practice, and has been for years, for engineers to "overdesign" sewer, water and storm drain systems to accommodate changing use patterns, changing technology, physical characteristics and maintenance requirements. Moreover, increased use of state-of-the-art low flow toilets, low flow water fixtures, aerators and other devices that save water and thereby introduce less effluent into the sewer system. Similarly, current drainage and water quality regulations rigorously control the amount of runoff entering drainage systems, which makes the drainage system more efficient. These facts have long been overlooked. We also note that when the Abalone Cove Sewer was installed, two laterals were constructed to serve the Downhill property and two additional lateral connections ("tees") are available in Narcissa Drive to serve the southern portion of the Downhill property. Clearly, someone anticipated further development of his property. Finally, he has been paying a higher benefit assessment for years, which assumes a higher development potential than a lot that can't be subdivided. We respectfully request that the City Council adopt an Ordinance that permits all Zone 2 properties to be developed pursuant to the General Plan and Zoning. We are not suggesting that that the City permit subdivision of larger properties without the benefit of the standard entitlement process (Map Act, CEQA process, etc.), however, we respectfully request that the Moratorium Ordinance treat aii Zone 2 owners equally. Attachment Respectfully, ~~Wee~ Gary S. Weber Weber Consulting CC: Jack Downhill, Eduardo Schonborn AICP, Mayor Duhovic and City Council 2 Attachments 1-113 '.i'O: J.'l'ROM: MEMORANDUM Trent Pulliam, Director of Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes Perry L. Eh~6{ty Geologist May 26, 1993 SUBJECT: Suggested Guidelines for Permitting Development in the Moratorium Area ·. · .. ~STA.BLISHM!NT OF MORATORIUM ZONES For the purpose of these guidelines, the Moratorium area is divided into the eight zones listed belov and shown on the Moratorium Map. Zone 1 -Unsubdivided land unaffected by large historic landslides and located uphill or to the west of subdivided areas. (about 550 seres) ~-~Zone 2 -Subdivided land unaffect_ed br la;:g~J!!"stoE~c,}.,~-~<!!!!_~es~~-t~J~_t:_~~~g-,~~est_ Zone 3 -Unsubdivided land unaffected by large historic landslides and located seaward of Sweetbay Road. (about 15 acres) Zone 4 -Land affected by the Klondike Canyon landslide and adjacent land included in the Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District. (about 100 acres) Zone 5 -Land affected by the Abalone Cove landslide and adjacent land where minor movement has occurred due to loss of lateral support. (about 90 acres) Zone 6 -The uphill, westerly and central parts of the Portuguese Bend landslide, vhere movement can be stopped through.mitigation without requiring shoreline protection. (about 210 acres) Zone 7 -The seaward part of the Portuguese'·Bend landslide where control of movement requires shoreline protection. (about 75 acres) Zone 8 -Land affected by the Flying Triangle landslide including illlmediately adjacent land. (about 25 acres) DESCRIPTIONS OF ZONES AND SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR PERMITTING DEVELOPMENT ZONE 1 Background Zone 1 includes about 550 acres of undev oped land. Most is within the uphill part of a large ancient landslide that was ast active about 100,000 years ago. Landslide topography is modified by erosion f canyons, filling of slide depressions and smoothing and flattening of sll e scarps. Zone 1 contains some broad areas where slopes are less than 5:1 (hori ontat to vertical) but the majority of the area has slopes ranging between 5: ad 2:1. Slopes steeper than 2:1 occur locally along the sides of canyons. 10-53 Attachments 1-114 Memo of 5/26/93 from P. Ehlig to T. Pulliam, page 2. The large ancient landslide does not underlie all of Zone 1. Land adjoining Palos Verdes Drive South in the southwest part of the zone is unaffected by sliding and probably has a ~ac.tol:" of safety in excess of 1.50. Land in the eastern part of the zone is also out~ide of the large landslide but it contains local landslides. Extensive geotec~ical studies have been conducted throughout Zone 1. Major goals of the studies in~d~ (1) locating and determining the configuration of the deepest slide plan , (2) determining ground water conditions beneath the area, and (3) analyzing~the ~ability of the ancient landslide, and (4) evaluating methods of improving the areas tability. Geotechnical studies are essentially complete in the eastern half of Z ne 1 but more are needed in the western half. Suggested Guidelines 1. Any land in Zone 1 w ich can be shown to have a safety factor of 1.5 or greater in regard to landslid ng, or is correctable to a factor of safety of 1.5 through remedial gradf g, and will upon development have no adverse impact on the stability of adjac nt land, shall be granted an exception for habitable development upon comple ion of all necessary remedial work. (This is consistent vith·existing City code. 2. Any land in Zone 1 which an be shown to have a safety factor between 1.30 and 1.50 in regard to the larg ancient landslide and has a factor of safety of 1.50 or gre6ter in regard local slope stability shall be granted an exception for habitable dev lopment providing it meets all other requirements in guideline l (above) and t e following stipulations: a. A network of monitoring an producing wells must be installed in accordance vith a plan approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency (RDA). b. A covenant must be attached to each deed agreeing to participate in the Abalone Cove Geologic Hazard batement District (ACLAD) and any other district established for the urpose of maintaining the land in a geologically stable condition. c. Surface drainage improvements m st be· installed in accordance with a plan approved by the RDA. d. A sewer system must be installed o serve all habitable structures. e • .All other RDA and City requiremen s must be met. 3. Any land in Zone l which is to be used for purposes other than habitable structures may be granted an exception or nonhabitable development providing it has a safety factor of 1.15 or great in regard to the large ancient landslide and it meets the following sti ulations: a. No land modification may be made which will adversely affect the local or regional stability of the land. b. A network of monitoring and production w lls must be installed in accordance with a plan approved by the RDA. c. A covenant must be signed agreeing to supp rt and participate in ACLAD and any other district established for the ~pose of maintaining the land in a geologically stable condition. d. Surface drainage improvements must be installe in accordance with a plan approved by the RDA. e. All other RDA and City requirements must be met. 10-54 Attachments 1-115 Memo of 5/26/93 from P. Ehlig to T. Pulliam, page 3. ZONE 2 Background Zone 2 includes about 130 acres within existing Tract 14195 and Tract 14500 (except lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 which are in the Portuguese Bend landslide), and the subdivided land served by Vanderlip Drive. It is an area of subdued topography within the central part of the large ancient landslide. Slopes of 5:1 and less prevail over most of the central and downhill parts of Zone 2. Slopes generally range betveen 5:1 and 3:1 in the uphill part. The flattest parts of Zone 2 overlie a: gentle trough in the bed~ock structure beneath the slide. The slide base followed the bedrock structure as the slide mass translated across this area. This caused a surface hollow to develop in an east-west direction across this area while the slide was active. The hollow was subsequently filled by stream and slope wash deposits. This created the gentle slopes which drain toward the channels of Altami:.:·a Canyon. Available geologic data indicate the base of the ancient landslide is at depths ranging from 180 to 260 feet below the ground surface in most parts of Zone 2. Four to six deep core holes would be desirable to more precisely establish the location of the slide base beneath parts of this area but new findings are unlikely to have a ai'gnific.ant impact on existing inteTpretations. The slide base is sufficiently flat 1ri the area seaward of upper Narc.issa Drive that the overlying slide mass resists movement providing the water table does not rise above its histo:ric. levels. Based on 9ell data, the water table was at a depth of 50 to 60 feet beneath most of this area prior to the start of pumping in 1980. The water table is currently at an average depth of about 70 feet. The 25 undeveloped lots in Tract 14195 and 15 in Tract 14500, and an undetermined ) nUIDber in parcels served by Vanderlip Drive, could be developed without adversely affecting the stability of the large ancient landslide. In fact, if development were combined vith installation of additional wells, stability would be improved. Most lots c.an be developed with minimal gratfrng and without a net import or e:xport of earth. Such grading would have no impact on the stability of the deep-seated slide. Ground vater is the only variable within Zone 2 vhich affects its stability. Zone 2 currently contains one monitoring vell and four producing wells. Eight to ten more monitoring vells are needed to provide a detailed picture of ground water conditions within Zone 2. Four to si:x more producing wells are needed to better control ground water conditions. If the cost of the needed wells were funded from fees paid for permission to develop vacant lots, development would improve the stability of the large ancient landslide. Suggested Guidelines Development of undeveloped lots shall be permitted in existing Tract 14195 and Tract 14500 (except lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 which are in the Portuguese Bend landslide), and the subdivided land served by Vanderlip Drive subject to the following stipulations: a. The lot O'WT!er must sign a covenant agreeing to participate in ACLAD and any other district whose purpose is to maintain the land in a geologically stable condition. 10-55 Attachments 1-116 Memo of 5/26/93 from P. Ehlig to T. Pulliam, page 4. b. The lot owner must pay a fee to help defray the cost of installing additi~nal monitoring and producing wells. Said fee shall not exceed the differentia between the sum of ACLAD fees previously assessed to an equivalent sized developed lot and the sum previously assessed to the undeveloped lot. (The annual tax difference between a developed lot and an undeveloped of equal size is determined by the square footage of improvements.) 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 construction, and shall spe~ify foundation designs based on field and laboratory studies. Grading exceeding 250 cubic yards shall r~quire special approval by the City staff. ·d. If building occurs prior to installation of a sewer system; a covenant must be signed agreeing to a sewer system and providing necessary easements for one. e. All lot drainage deficiencies, if any, identified by the City staff must be corrected. f. Runoff from all buildings and paved areas must be contained and directed to the street or to an approved drainage course. g. All other relevant building code requirements must be met. ZONE 3 :Sack.ground About 15 acres of un evelop land is present within the area bounded by the main channel of Altamira C nyon on the west, Sveetbay Road on the north, and the edge of the Portuguese Bend landslide on the east and southeast. Most of this land has gentle rolling topograp y and could be developed into residential lots with only minor grading, Available data indicates t e base of the large ancient landslide is nearly horizontal beneath this ar and is at a depth of 200 to 250 feet below the ground surface. Three to fi~\ deep core holes are needed to confirm this. Ground ~ater conditions are t'lie main variable affecting the stability of the large ancient landslide beneatlh this area. The area should remain stable as long as the water table rises no higi\er than its historic high level. The area contains two producing wells but no monitck-ing wells. Data from the two wells and projections from wells in the adj~ning area indicates the water table is 10 to 15 feet lower than it was in 1983. At),resent 1 the water table ranges from about 60 to as much as 130 feet below the grd~nd surface. Three to five monitoring wells and one or two additional producing ~~lls should be installed during development of this area. \ Suggested Guidelines \ Additional geologic studies are needed to accurately locate the b~~e of the large ancient landslide beneath this area. If th results of such studies are favorable development could be permitted contingent u\on meeting all City requirements , pertaining to development of residential tra\ts and subject to the following stipulations: 3 a. Ground water monitoring and production well must be installed in accordance with a plan approved by the RDA. b, Surface ,drainage channels must be paved in ace rdance with a plan approved by the RDA. ~ 10-56 Attachments 1-117 TO: Director of Community Development From: Jack Downhill .Zone 2 Property Owner Subject: Case No . ZON2009-00409 ; Comments on MAR 6 Draft. APR 0 4 1.014 COMMUNl'fV oEVELOPMENT oePARTMENT The EIR Document and Staff commentary fail to provide objective, in essence any at all, treatment of the omission of the three properties Nos. 8, 10 and 20 on Vanderlip Dr. These properties occupy the entire northeast corner of Zone 2.and deserve explicit inclusion, with limited parceling, in the Mitigated category being recommended for allowing development. !. They are very far removed in Zone 2 from the area where any earth movement was measured and recorded in the 1980s. 2. They are situated between Altimira and Kelvin Canyons and have excellent Storm Drainage qualities . 3. Their likely parceling would only add six to the area total of 47designated for development. 4. An adjacent property owned by John Vanderlip was approved for a "Lot Split" in 1989. And that parcel was one of the "Monks Properties" granted entitlement. 5. The current dwellings are served by the local sewage system and there were laterals for added dwellings provided at the time of initial installation. 6. Fairness and pure logic are missing from the rationale to approve two properties at the Narcissa Dr. Ginger Root Intersection where earth movement was documented and one on Clove Tree Lane adjacent to a property with slide effects 7. The three Vanderlip Dr. properties are currently designated "one unit per acre" and in all the documents I have ever seen. This probably occurred when this acreage along Vanderlip Dr. was not included in the Portuguese Bend Community as defined at that point in time. It most likely was all one piece including a guest house, a garage and the "Bird Keeper's Cottage" ,later the" Laughton property", at the time . The colorful pictorial of Zone Two shows graphically the three Vanderlip Dr. properties that have in essence been removed from Zone Two and, at great distance, the three other properties on the fringe of the active slide being recommended for allowed development Signed : Jae Downhill, 20 Vanderlip Dr., a one fourth owner in Oct. 1968, full owner in 1972 and Owner Occupant since Jan.1981 Attachments 1-118 To: eduardos@rpv.com FROM: Dan and Vicki Pinkham Planning@rpv.com #1 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Jerr.duhovic@rpv.com Susan.brooks@rpv.com Brian.campbell@rpv.com Jim.knight@rpv.com Anthony.misetich@rpv.com April 7, 2014 Subject: Comments on Case No. ZON2009-00409 (Code Amendment & EIR) IMPACT ANALYSIS A bit of history—Portuguese Bend Gate House, AKA “Villa Palos Verdes” Our home, #1 Narcissa Drive, commonly know as “The Portuguese Bend community Gate House”, is historically, architecturally, and socially significant to this community and to California. The Gate House was designed after a 16th century Italian Chapel, and was one of the original Frank Vanderlip homes built in 1924 by the well-known architect, Gordon Kaufman. This Gate House, is the first home located on one of the two access roads to the proposed Zone 2 future development. The Narcissa Drive entrance road is located only INCHES from our front door and living room. Originally the Vanderlips’s designed the Narcissa road ONLY to be the entrance for several 100- acre private estates. After the financial collapse in 1929, it became necessary to sub divide the lots into smaller parcels, causing a need to widen the road . Now with more Attachments 1-119 growth, our concern is that the entrance may again be too small to accommodate the future oversized construction traffic. Impact of existing building Since the existing construction for the Monk’s property, we have already experienced very negative impacts due to the size and amount of heavy equipment trying to navigate the narrow entrance road. You may know already that a cement truck, working on one of the Monk’s lots, demolished the original Vanderlip entrance cement wall; causing valuable historical damage. Our pillars, walls, and landscaping are constantly being hit by traffic trying to navigate the narrow width of the road. (see attached photos) .The EIR may have studied the projected number of construction trucks that could possibly enter Narcissa Drive over a 10 year period, however, it only takes only ONE oversized truck to hit a bicyclist, on coming car, a pedestrian, or our house to create a tragedy and an expensive law suit against the city in the future. Mitigation suggested to the city As one of the original “Vanderlip homes”, our home is NOT part of the Portuguese Bend Community Association. We are in no way protected or represented by the PBCA. We purchased our home in huge disrepair. Since then we have spent years improving our home and the entrance to the community association, not to mention, creating a beautiful city landmark. In reality, there is a VERY Attachments 1-120 significant impact on our home and health. There was a building moratorium when we purchased our home; it was impossible to believe that future home development would occur in an ANCIENT LANDSLIDE. We feel that the city of RPV should seriously consider some form of mitigation, compensation and or insurance for the significant and potential impact that this development will most certainly cause our family. Fortunately, there does seem to be a mitigation solution for our dilemma. Years ago, we submitted several Myron Hunt /Gordon Kaufman entrance designs to the PBCA. These concepts were for a reconfigured Narcissa entrance that both the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and Portuguese Bend Community would laud as an asset to this one of a kind Southern California iconic community. Each set of plans was carefully designed with the utmost concern for the community, it’s safety, historical importance and it’s esthetics. Each design moved the Narcissa entrance road approx 36 feet from the existing road. Our designs have been disregarded because we are “not members of the association and the city permits would be too expensive.” It has been suggested that the city could possibly work jointly with the association and us in efforts to move and improve the entrance road. Perhaps the city could wave the fees that would be necessary to make these engineering adjustments to the entrance. We would be more than happy to contribute to this effort in any necessary way. We could easily gather other professionals that would be more than happy to contribute their expertise. This could easily be Attachments 1-121 accomplished with the city’s assistance and the PBCA’s understanding and approval. Please let it also be known that, in our 11/19/2012, DEIR comments, we have brought it to the city’s attention that in a fire emergency, the earth moving fire equipment trucks are too large to enter the Narcissa and Peppertree roads. Let it be know, also that we have provided evidence About the destabilization and erosion of our property in Altamira Canyon. Attachments 1-122 A t t a c h m e n t s 1 - 1 2 3 A t t a c h m e n t s 1 - 1 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t s 1 - 1 2 5 Appendix A: Photographic evidence of problems with the Storm Drain System Flooding: The existing storm drain system in the Zone 2 area is inadequate to handle storm water runoff during major storms. Local flooding is a typical problem. a. A key storm drain is located at the junction of Cinnamon and Narcissa. This drain conveys all of the storm water from the west side of the community that drains from upper Cinnamon, upper Narcissa and Ginger Root to the Fig Tree drain and Altamira Canyon. The photos illustrate problems in the system during major storms in 2005 and 2010. (Photos courtesy of Cassie Jones, Lewis Enstedt, Gary Stokoe and Robert Douglas). Storm drain (today) at the junction of Cinnamon and Narcissa showing the inlet (arrow) to the 42” CMP that conveys water to the Fig Tree Road drain. Storm water is supposed to be captured by this inlet and not flow further down Narcissa Drive. Attachments 1-126 Same location as above during the winter storm of 2005. Note that sheet flow flooding the street and (1) water overflowing and bypassing the inlet allowing water to flow further down Narcissa (2) and that the inlet to the culvert is filled (3) and overflowing. b. Flooding and overflow on upper Narcissa Drive. Street flooding in the storm of 2010 at upper Narcissa Lane, looking west from 76 Narcissa. Attachments 1-127 Flooding of dewatering well WW 15 along upper Narcissa during the winter 2010 storm. Flooding at 60 Narcissa Drive during the winter storm of 2010. Shortly before this photo was taken storm water was overflowing Narcissa Drive and flowing down the driveway to the house. Note sand bags placed across the driveway in an attempt to impede the storm water. Flooding at the intersection of Vanderlip Road and Narcissa Drive. The storm drain inlet was plugged with mud and debris conveyed down Vanderlip Drive. Attachments 1-128 Flooding during the same storm as above, looking west from 80 Narcissa. Because of the low gradient in the street, in major storms the runoff which comes from houses on the street and sheet flow from the adjacent open slopes in the PV Peninsula Land Conservancy land exceeds the capacity of the system. The water which overflows the berm (left side of the photo) floods the adjacent open lots. c. Flooding at the intersection of Narcissa and Ginger Root and sheet flow from the PB Riding Club. Entrance to the Riding Club at the corner of Ginger Root Lane and Narcissa Drive ((left, today) and during typical storm flooding. Attachments 1-129 During heavy rain storms runoff from the corrals and open space in the Club exists through the gate and contributes to flooding on Narcissa Drive and the overload at the Cinnamon-Narcissa culvert. Note the sand bags that have been placed at the gate in an attempt to control the storm runoff and the gravel which it carries onto Narcissa Drive. Flooding at the intersection of Ginger Root Lane and Narcissa Drive, looking SW, with the Riding Club entrance gate just off to the right. Note that the road berm is completely submerged. . Attachments 1-130 Heavy runoff flow on Ginger Root Lane following flooding conditions d. Flooding along lower Narcissa due to reverse gradient in the street. Two views of lower Narcissa which attempt to capture the reverse in the street gradient as it approaches the entrance to the community. Due to landslide movement, the original street gradient has been reversed and runoff water must flow “uphill” before entering the street culvert that empty into the 120” CMP culvert in Altamira Canyon. During major storms, storm runoff ponds along the street and then flows off-road and floods the depression where dewater well WW 2 is located (below) and creates a settling pond. Attachments 1-131 Storm water from Narcissa Drive which overflowed the berm and flooded the depression containing dewatering well WW2. Attachments 1-132 Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District (ACLAD) A State of California Geohazard District PMB 169-P.O. Box 7000 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 (310) 787-7111, x3 FAX (310) 787-7193 To: Joel Rojas, Director, Community Development Department, City of RPV From: Robert Douglas, Chairman, Board of Directors, ACLAD Date: July xx, 2013 cc: Eduardo Schonborn, Planning Division, Community Development Department, City of RPV Subject: Follow-up to the Draft EIR for the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revision for Zone 2 INTRODUCTION In an earlier memorandum (Miscellaneous Document, November 16, 2012) ACLAD concluded after reviewing the Geology (including appendix D, Geotechnical Study) and Hydrology and Water Quality sections of the draft EIR for Zone 2 that there were important issues that were not fully addressed in the report. In reviewing the most recent draft EIR, we continue to have concerns that important issues are either not adequately addressed or are based on incorrect assumptions that alter the significance of the impacts. We address two: Flooding/Hydrology and Geology FLOOD /HYDROLOGY Current Storm Drain System The present storm drain system in Zone 2 and adjacent areas (shown below) is taken from the Draft EIR section on flooding and hydrology, figure 4.8-1. The storm drain system shown in red on the map is based on the City of RPV 2004 revised edition of the city’s storm drains. Unfortunately, as shown it is incomplete and only covers the west side of the community. The Attachments 1-133 illustration omits the storm drain system in the rest of Zone 2, mostly the east side. In blue is the rest of the system covering Vanderlip Drive, upper Narcissa Drive, lower Cinnamon Lane, Sweetbay Road and lower Narcissa within the Abalone Cove landslide, all of which are important in conveying storm water runoff into Altamira Canyon. Also note that the 300 feet of Altamira Canyon located between the end of the culvert exiting Fig Tree Road and the 120” CMP culvert at the entrance (beneath the park) is included in the City/EIR’s storm drain system. It is important to recognize the complete system because all of the streets and culverts in the community are involved in conveying storm water runoff from houses and open lots into Altamira Canyon. All parts of the system are important and must function successfully in order to prevent flooding and the type of problems that have plagued the community for years. The storm drainage system in Zone 2 and adjacent areas. Outlined in red is the system illustrated in the revised Draft EIR report (fig. 4.8-1). Shown in blue is the rest of the functioning storm drain system in Zone 2 and adjacent community. Attachments 1-134 Under-capacity of the Current Drainage System, Flooding and increased Infiltration In the Conclusions and Recommendations (p.7), the EIR states that “flood/hydrology impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project would: 1. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drain storm water drainage systems 2. Increase infiltration which could affect the stability of existing landslides in the project vicinity.” ACLAD believes that both statements are in fact correct and therefore each one constitutes a significant impact. In section A we present evidence of the inadequacies of the storm drain system and in section B discuss the impact of runoff on groundwater infiltration: Section A A.1 Under-capacity of the Existing Storm Drain System In the EIR, the hydrologic analyses determined that post-development conditions would result in an increase in storm drain runoff as a result of the increase in impervious area that would occur when the 47 lots are developed. However, they conclude that the combined impact from the development is insignificant for the following reasons: • The existing (natural) drainage patterns are maintained and the combination of natural and constructed drainage conveyance and the surface flow has the capacity to convey the runoff from the project site The EIR report assumes that because the current drainage system has existed for many years that it is adequate to convey rainfall runoff. This assumption is incorrect and in fact the system does not have the capacity to convey storm runoff from the project area in major rain storms. Background: The EIR statement that the “existing drainage system was designed for the entire Portuguese Bend development, including the 47 undeveloped lots” is an overstatement. The storm drain system in Zone 2 is the streets in the community, with a few culverts that connect streets and convey storm water into Altamira Canyon. The streets in Zone 2 are simply the paved over dirt roads established by farmers early in the 20th century and addition and modification to the streets during development in the 1940-l950s was to maximize the number of buildable lots, not to improve storm water drainage. It is safe to say that the current street “system” was never “designed” for anything other than to provide access to the community. Attachments 1-135 The inadequacy of the streets as a storm drain system was recognized in the l970s when a number of significant flood events occurred in the community. Following reactivation of the Abalone Cove landslide, the Panel of Experts recommended upgrading the culverts and other parts of the system In 1990 ASL Consulting Engineers recommended eight major improvements to upgrading the storm drain system (left) but only two minor modifications to the then existing system were made and the system today remains basically as it was in pre- 1990. to achieve better control of storm water runoff. In 1990 ASL consulting Engineers was retained by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of RPV to perform hydrology and hydraulic studies to determine the storm runoff for the area located in the Altamira Canyon watershed. The area they studied is the same as in the current EIR report. At the request of the City, the study examined the effects of runoff from storms having a probability of recurring once in 50 year and 100 year. The study highlighted serious deficiencies in the then existing storm runoff system and made major recommendations to improve it. Except for a few modifications, the recommendations were never implemented and the system remains a slightly modified version of 1990. It is basically a make-do series of paved streets with berms added over the years to bandage the biggest problems. The major problems occur during major storms when rainfall exceeds 0.5 in/hr and storm totals are over 6 in/24 hours. During these rain storms such as occurred in 2005 and 2010, storm water fills and overflows the streets, causing significant local flooding and erosion. The development of the 47l lots will, as stated in the analyses increase storm water runoff from individual lots by 10-15% and for the project by 2.9-4.5%. There is good reason to believe that this increase will be the proverbial straw to an already over burdened/under-capacity system. (see Appendix A, For photographic examples of the problems and deficiencies in the storm drain system during the major storms of 2005 and 2010.) Attachments 1-136 A.2 Unresolved drainage problems There are two unresolved drainage problems that have affected the project area for many years and impact the adequacy of the current system. Both are old, natural drainage channels which collect rain water from upslope areas above Zone 2. They can be identified in old topographic maps, aerial photos and surface photographs and were never adequately addressed in development of the storm drain system. During major rain storms storm water flows through the channels, spills out on to adjacent lots and causes local flooding and erosion. Both channels cross open, undeveloped lots and should be addressed before development of the lots. The location of old, natural drainage channels (shown in blue) which drain upslope areas and convey surface runoff water in major rain storm events. Channel 1 drains subarea 143C (48.3 acres), and in some years, portions of 142C (23.3 acres) (see EIR fig 4.8-1 for location of subareas), the area generally south of the old Crenshaw Extension and Channel 2 drains upslope areas north of upper Cinnamon Road, subarea 154B (7.7 acres). Letters identify location of the photographs shown below). According to the hydrology calculations in the draft EIR, area 1, subarea 143C has a runoff potential (QB) of 122 cubic feet per second (cfs) and in excess of 200 cfs when storm water drainage from 142C jumps Crenshaw Extension and flows into subarea 143C. Area 2 drains subarea 154B and has a QB of 22.8 cfs. A.2.1 Natural drainage channel at Location 1 which drains subarea 143C and in some years, portions of subarea 142C and conveys storm water to Altamira Canyon Attachments 1-137 Location 1a, (left) drainage ditch cut into the slope to direct water into the inlet (lower right) to the culvert that runs under upper Narcissa Drive. Sheet flow from upslope areas overflowed the ditch and culvert and flooded Narcissa Lane during high rainfall years in the 1990s (e.g. 1995, 1998) and 2000s (2001, 2005, 2010). In the February, 2005 storm runoff that originated in the area north of Peacock Flats, flowed (raced) down the Crenshaw Extension dirt road, jumping the road at the sharp curve east of Kelvin Canyon and flowed down the slope above Narcissa Drive. The storm water flooded upper Narcissa and over whelmed the channels between Narcissa and Sweetbay Road. 1b Channels crossing the open lots north of Sweetbay. The northern (left) channel was over two feet deep and conveyed a stream with 6-8 inches of water following the winter storm of 2005. In the area in the immediate foreground, next to Sweetbay Road, water ponds during storms and overflows onto the road. The two channels merge into one under the vegetation in the distance and eventually connect to the culvert that crosses Narcissa Drive (see 1a). Disking the fields for weed control has partially filled in the channels over the past few years. Attachments 1-138 (left) The California Water Service water main exposed by erosion in the northern channel following the 2005 storm (it remains exposed today). 1c (right) Storm water flows (west) across Sweetbay Road and exists at the trees ( 1c) into the continuation of the old channel. Storm water eventually flows into Altamira Canyon A.2.2 Natural drainage channel at Location 2, draining subarea 154B, and extending from upper Cinnamon to the five-points intersection to Sweetbay Road and Altamira Canyon Path of the drainage channel which begins above upper Cinnamon and extends across 5-point intersection (a) , through the corral at “Right to Fly” and across the open lots (b) to the King property (c) that at Sweetbay Road , crosses another horse corral and finally empties into Altamira Canyon. Attachments 1-139 2a Fine-points intersection (view looking north) of Narcissa (right to left), Cinnamon (north to south) and Ginger Root Lane (off photo to the lower left). Originally, storm water drained down upper Cinnamon (towards the viewer), crossed Narcissa and exited to the right by the stop sign. A culvert (now buried) extends under Narcissa to convey the flow. Storm water continues across the horse corral of “Ride-to-fly” and then into a channel which crosses open lots before eventually exiting into Altamira Canyon south of Sweetbay Road. Because of repeated flooding, the roads at the intersection were re-pitched to force storm water to flow across the intersection and down Ginger Root Lane. During major storms, storm water splits at the intersection, part flowing along the course of the old channel and part down Ginger Root Lane. 2b Portions of the channel which extends from the corral at “Ride to Fly” (left) behind the houses which front onto Sweetbay Road and to the King property at Sweetbay Road. Attachments 1-140 2b Flooded backyards of the houses adjacent to the channel when the channel overflowed in the winter storm of 2005. 2c (below) The continuation of the channel shown in 2b across the King lot at Sweetbay Road, today (left) and flooded in the winter storm of 2005(right) . 2c Continuation of the channel, today(left) and flooded during the winter storm of 2005 (right). To the left of this channel (towards Sweetbay Road) is located dewatering well WW 13 which was partially flooded by overflow water which flowed as a sheet across the lot to Sweetbay Road (below). Attachments 1-141 Storm water from the channel (above) which overflowed onto Sweetbay Road (in the background) 2c Detail of the 15” CMP culvert (usually filled) that drains from the King lot, under the adjacent property and empties directly in to the horse corral at 26 Sweetbay Road. During major winter rain storms the corral floods before the water flow exists into Sweetbay Road and Altamira Canyon. B. Increased infiltration The EIR analysis indicates that “the addition of impervious areas (new houses) will reduce the total infiltration in the project site and due to the low permeability of the soils and steepness of the canyon sides, for a given storm event, the total infiltration will not exceed the existing condition”. This hardly seems possible when, as the analyses states, more runoff water will be entering the streets with the development of the 47 lots and, eventually, into Altamira Canyon. Studies (Hill, 2000; Hill, et al, 2007) reveal that the infiltration in the bottom of Altamira Canyon is one of the major sources of recharging the groundwater. The photos below, taken about 15-20 minutes apart in December 2010 , illustrate the problem: On the left is Attachments 1-142 storm water discharging from the 120” CMP culvert in Altamira Canyon at the crossing with upper Narcissa Drive. Storm water discharge in Altamira Canyon, December 2010. Both photos were taken on the same day, the one on the left is discharge from the 120” CMP at upper Narcissa Drive and taken about 15-20 minutes earlier than the one on the right which is in Altamira Canyon at the inlet to the 120” CMP that extends under the park at the entrance. The two sites are about 0.6 miles apart. The flow is estimated at several hundred cubic feet per second. The photo on the right, taken 15-20 minutes later is the flow in Altamira Canyon at the inlet to the 120” CPM that extends under Narcissa Drive near the entrance to the community. Where did the discharge water go? It infiltrated into the bottom of the canyon between upper Narcissa and the entrance, especially where the Abalone Cove landslide and other major fractures cross the canyon. About 60-70% of the flow infiltrated over a distance of approximately 0.6 miles. Along that distance there are other sources of runoff water, from the Fig Tree Road drain (which drains all of the west side of the community) and tributaries entering the Altamira Canyon south of Sweetbay Road. Hill (2000) found that between 1-18% of the storm water discharge measured at the culvert at Sweetbay Road existed into the ocean. Her investigation and later ones conducted by ACLAD, estimate that between 55 to 75% of the discharge water in Altamira Canyon is infiltrating into the bottom of the canyon to recharge the ground water. Even small increases in the rain storm runoff entering the street storm-drain system are important as they ultimately feed into the ground water. Attachments 1-143 SLOPE-STABILITY AND LANDSLIDE MOVEMENT The draft EIR report (based primarily on the Geology in the LGC Valley report) concludes that development of the 47 undeveloped lots within Zone 2 will not have a negative effect on the overall stability of the landslides, ancient and active provided that development of the lots is within the guidelines and conditions set by the City of RPV. They believe that the greatest threat to Zone 2 is the potential loss of lateral upslope support due to movement within the ACL and PBL. ACLAD is in general agreement with this conclusion but cautions that the older pre-2007 GPS data upon which their conclusion is based are of varying data quality. Since McGee Surveying began working with ACLAD and the City of RPV to improve and expand the GPS network in 2007, there has been a marked improvement in the GPS survey results. Damage or disturbances to monuments and errors in data collection and analysis have been eliminated. These results show that all of Zone 2 and adjacent areas, with the exception of the area north of the anticline beneath Peacock Flats (CR50,51,52) and west of Fruit Tree Lane (AB17) are steadily creeping south-southeast at tenths to hundredths of a foot per year. It is Distribution of the GPS stations in Zone 2 and adjacent areas (upper left). Of interest is the slow movement in the upslope area north of the Abalone Cove landslide, shown in cumulative movement in the seven northern stations (upper right graph) and contoured as “extremely slow and very slow” in the map that summarizes the GPS results of the past 19 years. Attachments 1-144 safe to say that the entire area is undergoing slow movement and has been since the GPS network was installed and probably for much longer. Because most of these stations are located on fairly flat terrain, except for CR07 (located on Crenshaw Extension, next to Portuguese Canyon) the movement does not appear to be slope creep but rather primary movement. This interpretation indicates that the area, including portions of the Ancient Altamira landslide have minimum stability and by definition the FOS for the area is not greater than 1.0. The problem with slow moving landslides is that it takes decades to recognize and adequately diagnosis the level of instability. But, as illustrated by the Portuguese Bend landslide, they can be reactivated rather quickly (months) and once reactivated, the landslides have proven essentially impossible to stop. Attachments 1-145 RECEI VE D O(T 1 8 2013 C OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT To : Director of Community Development Subject : Zone Two Draft EIR . ( ··f-f !? !)Cl?; , I I believe there is an aspect of the subject Draft EIR that is currently unclear. What is the true purpose? I believe it should be to attain a realistic assessment of all factors that have led to the current situation. The environmental factors of light, noise, vegetation etc. etc. ar e clearly not the answer. The only thing that is of concern is who both legally and rationally will be granted the permits to proceed to improve their particular property and any conditions to be applied thereto. It is my contention that all properties in Zone Two must be treated fairly and equally co nsi dering historic as well as current zoning and density fa ctors, underdeve loped as well as undeveloped . For example, the three properties on Vanderlip Dr. which are designated R-1 ; One Unit per Acre, and each of which is several ac r es in area while currently improved with a sing le unit. These were cr ea ted by the Frank Vanderlip Business/Personal Interests in the same time frame as the Portuguese Bend Community Identity of which all other lots are a part. A very probable reason for this would have been simply to pres erve appearances along the driveway entrance to hi s family estate. Another factor related to my particular property is that the adjoining lot to the west, a Monks Lot, was created in November 1989 by a "Lot split" which was allowed under the Moratorium language which sti ll remains unchanged .. Th e Par cel Proce ss by which I have identified 4 individual Lots, all of which would be subject to the same qualifications/restrictions as the Monks and other Undeveloped Lots. The two lots in my proposa l fronting on Narcissa would each be 1.5 acres in si ze and would enhan ce the vi sual aspe cts of the surroundings . Drainage from roof tops and hardscape would be readily conducted to adequate drainage into Kelvin or Alti mira Canyon . Sewer laterals on Narci ss a that would serve these two propose d lots are already in place . A n example of the confusing nature of the current Draft EIR is the selection by this proce ss of two lots at t.I Ol.l<A"(4'..- th e corner of Narcissa and Ginger Root and one on Thyme Pl. all on the very edge of earth movement early on are ok to develop whereas the properti es on Vanderlip Dr., the most distant from any slide activity, are essentially removed from Zone2. These facto;t;•;v~I det~mination Sig9~i ll , owner of the property identified C:-o Vanderlip Dr. l_./ Attachments 1-146 DRAFT ORDINANCE Attachments 1-147 ORDINANCE NO. ___ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 15.20 (MORATORIUM ON LAND USE PERMITS) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH AN EXCEPTION CATEGORY TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 31 UNDEVELOPED LOTS IN ZONE 2 THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE MONKS V. CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CAS E. WHEREAS, on December 17, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied the City’s petition for review in the case of Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes; and, WHEREAS, on January 21, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-06 repealing Resolution No. 2002-43, which had required property owners in Zone 2 to establish a 1.5:1 factor of safety before they could develop their lots, which was the purported catalyst for the filing of the Monks lawsuit; and, WHEREAS, on September 15, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-72, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program to allow development of the sixteen lots owned by the Monks plaintiffs; and, WHEREAS, on September 15, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 498, an amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits), establishing an exception category to allow for the future development of the sixteen (16) Monks plaintiffs’ undeveloped lots in Zone 2 of the Landslide Moratorium area; and, WHEREAS, on January 5, 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 502, a further revision to the to the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance (Chapter 15.20 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code) to allow site grading for the development of each of the Monks plaintiffs’ lots not to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of combined cut and fill, and with no import in excess of 50 cubic yards. An addendum to the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration was also adopted; and, WHEREAS, on October 14, 2009, the City commenced the processing of a further revision to the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance (Chapter 15.20 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code) to allow for the future development of the remaining 31 undeveloped lots in Zone 2 that were not part of the Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes case; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Attachments 1-148 Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2010121073) (the “EIR”); and, WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Environmental Study (the “Initial Study”) for the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, and on January 3, 2011, the Initial Study (IS) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) were released to the public and public agencies for a comment period of 30 days (through February 2, 2011). Further, The NOP was distributed to all Responsible Agencies, as well as other agencies; to property owners within Zone 2 and within a 500-foot radius of Zone 2; to those registered on the list-serve for this project; and the Notice was posted on the City’s website. Lastly, a copy of the Initial Study was made available at the public counter at City Hall, Hesse Park, the local libraries, and made available on the City’s website for the public to download and review; and, WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, the City Council conducted a public scoping meeting to provide a forum for agencies and members of the public to provide oral comments on the IS/NOP; and, WHEREAS, after the NOP comment period ended, the Draft EIR was prepared taking various comments into account. After completing the Draft EIR, the document was made available to the public on September 21, 2012, for a 60-day public comment period that concluded on November 20, 2012; and, WHEREAS, on November 7, 2012, the City Council conducted a public meeting to provide the public and the City Council with an opportunity to provide verbal comments, in addition to the typical written comments, on the Draft EIR for the Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions; and, WHEREAS, on March 6, 2014, the Final EIR was completed and Notice was provided via mail and publication in the PV Peninsula News that a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council on April 15, 2014 to review the Final EIR and the proposed Code Amendment. Subsequently, a notice was emailed to the 397 people registered on the City’s list-serve message system for this project; and, WHEREAS, on April 15, 2014, the City Council continued the public hearing to the May 6, 2014 City Council meeting to allow additional time for the public to submit comments on the proposed Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions; and, WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and CEQA, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 6, 2014, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and further present evidence regarding the proposed Code Amendment, the Final EIR and the responses to the comments received regarding the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, at its May 6, 2014, meeting, after hearing public testimony, the City Attachments 1-149 Council continued the public hearing to June __, 2014; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on June __, 2014, the City Council reopened the public hearing, regarding the proposed Code Amendment, the Final EIR and the responses to the comments received regarding the Draft EIR and heard additional testimony and evidence and adopted Resolution No. 2014-__, certifying an Environmental Impact Report and making certain findings related to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Case No. ZON2009-00409; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City Council has reviewed and considered the amendments to Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Municipal Code. Section 2: The City Council finds that the amendments to Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Municipal Code are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan in that they uphold, and do not hinder, the goals and policies of those plans, in particular to balance the rights of owners of undeveloped properties within “Zone 2” of the City’s Landslide Moratorium Area to make reasonable use of their properties while limiting the potential impacts resulting from such use upon landslide movement, soil stability and public safety within and adjacent to the Landslide Moratorium Area. Section 3: The City Council further finds that the amendments to Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Municipal Code are consistent with the action taken to allow development of the 16 undeveloped Monks plaintiffs’ lots that are located in Zone 2 of the City’s Landslide Moratorium Area in that they will allow the potential future development of the remaining 31 Non-Monks plaintiffs’ undeveloped lots within Zone 2 of the City’s Landslide Moratorium Area with new, single-family residences. Thus, the City Council finds that the amendment achieves parity with the rights enjoyed by the owners of the developed lots in Zone 2 of the City’s Landslide Moratorium Area and achieves parity with the rights enjoyed by the owners of the 16 Monks plaintiffs’ lots in Zone 2 of the City’s Landslide Moratorium Area. Section 4: The City Council further finds that there is no substantial evidence that the amendments to Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Municipal Code would result in significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of such effects, with the exception of a significant unavoidable impact to traffic and circulation (specifically, the intersections of Seahill Drive and Tramonto Drive/Palos Verdes Drive South, and Forrestal Drive and Palos Verdes Drive South). The City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report, and made certain findings related to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Case No. ZON2009-00409 prior to making its decision regarding the code amendments Attachments 1-150 contemplated herein, as evidenced in Resolution No. 2014-__, adopted by the City Council on June __, 2014. Section 5: The City Council further finds that the amendments to Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Municipal Code are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare in the area. Section 6: Based upon the foregoing, Section 15.20.040 of Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Paragraph Q thereto read as follows (added language is underlined, and deleted language is in strikethrough): The moratorium shall not be applicable to any of the following: A. Maintenance of existing structures or facilities which do not increase the land coverage of those facilities or add to the water usage of those facilities; B. Replacement, repair or restoration of a residential building or structure which has been damaged or destroyed due to one of the following hazards, provided that a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved by the director, and provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in Section 15.20.050 of this chapter: 1. A Geologic Hazard. Such structure may be replaced, repaired or restored to original condition; provided, that such construction shall be limited to the same square footage and in the same general location on the property and such construction will not aggravate any hazardous geologic condition, if a hazardous geologic condition remains. Prior to the approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation. The applicant shall comply with any requirements imposed by the city’s geotechnical staff and shall substantially repair the geologic condition to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff prior to the issuance of a final building permit. Upon application to the director, setbacks may conform to the setbacks listed below: Minimum Setback Standards Front Interior side Street side Rear 20 5 10 15 2. A Hazard Other Than a Geologic Hazard. Such structure may be replaced, repaired or restored to original condition; provided, that such Attachments 1-151 construction shall be limited to the same square footage and in the same general location on the property and such construction will not aggravate any hazardous condition, if a hazardous condition remains. Prior to the approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation. Upon application to the director, setbacks may conform to the setbacks listed in subsection (B)(1) of this section; C. Building permits for existing structures which were constructed prior to October 5, 1978, for which permits were not previously granted, in order to legalize such structure(s). Such permits may only be granted if the structure is brought into substantial compliance with the Uniform Building Code; D. The approval of an environmental assessment or environmental impact report for a project as to which the city or redevelopment agency is the project applicant; E. Projects that are to be performed or constructed by the city or by the Rancho Palos Verdes redevelopment agency to mitigate the potential for landslide or to otherwise enhance public safety; F. Remedial grading to correct problems caused by landslide or to otherwise enhance public safety, performed pursuant to a permit issued pursuant to Section 17.76.040(B)(3) of this Code; G. Geologic Investigation Permits. Prior to the approval of such a permit, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed investigation will not aggravate the existing situation; H. Minor projects on a lot that is in the “landslide moratorium area,” as outlined in red on the landslide moratorium map on file in the director’s office, and currently is developed with a residential structure or other lawfully existing nonresidential structure and involves an addition to an existing structure, enclosed patio, conversion of an existing garage to habitable space or construction of a permanent attached or detached accessory structure and does not exceed a cumulative project(s) total of one thousand two hundred square feet per parcel; provided that a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved by the director and provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in Section 15.20.050 and does not include any additional plumbing fixtures, unless the lot is served by a sanitary sewer system. The one thousand two hundred square foot limitation on cumulative projects that can be approved on a lot pursuant to this subsection includes the construction of a new garage, which can be approved pursuant to subsection L of this section. November 5, 2002, is the date that shall Attachments 1-152 be used for determining the baseline square footage, based upon city and county building permit records, for purposes of calculating the square footage of any cumulative project(s) and of any additions that may be constructed pursuant to this subsection. Minor projects involving the construction of an enclosed permanent detached accessory structure, which are located in an area that is not served by a sanitary sewer system, shall include a requirement that a use restriction covenant, in a form acceptable to the city, that prevents the enclosed permanent detached accessory structure from being used as a separate dwelling unit shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County register-recorder. Such covenant shall be submitted to the director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to the approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit for such minor projects, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation; I. Construction or installation of temporary minor nonresidential structures which are no more than three hundred twenty square feet in size, with no plumbing fixtures and which do not increase water use, may be approved by the director. If the lot is served by a sanitary sewer system, the permit may allow the installation of plumbing fixtures. All permits shall include a requirement that a use restriction covenant, in a form acceptable to the city which prevents the structure from being used for any purpose other than a nonhabitable use, is recorded with the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder. A minor nonresidential structure is defined as temporary if the Building Code does not require it to be erected upon or attached to a fixed, permanent foundation and if, in fact, it will not be erected upon or attached to such a foundation. Prior to approval of the application, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation; J. Submittal of a lot-line adjustment application; K. Minor projects on a lot that is in the “landslide moratorium area,” as outlined in blue on the landslide moratorium map on file in the director’s office, and currently is developed with a residential structure or other lawfully existing nonresidential structure and involves an addition to an existing structure, enclosed patio, conversion of an existing garage to habitable space or construction of a permanent attached or detached accessory structure and does not exceed a cumulative project(s) total of one thousand two hundred square feet per parcel; provided that a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved by the director and provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in Section Attachments 1-153 15.20.050 and does not include any additional plumbing fixtures, unless the lot is served by a sanitary sewer system. The one thousand two hundred square foot limitation on cumulative projects that can be approved on a lot pursuant to this subsection includes the construction of a new garage, which can be approved pursuant to subsection L of this section. November 5, 2002, is the date that shall be used for determining the baseline square footage, based upon city and county building permit records, for purposes of calculating the square footage of any cumulative project(s) and of any additions that may be constructed pursuant to this subsection. Minor projects involving the construction of an enclosed permanent detached accessory structure, which are located in an area that is not served by a sanitary sewer system, shall include a requirement that a use restriction covenant, in a form acceptable to the city, that prevents the enclosed permanent detached accessory structure from being used as a separate dwelling unit shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County register-recorder. Such covenant shall be submitted to the director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior the approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit for such minor projects, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation; L. Construction of one attached or detached garage per parcel that does not exceed an area of six hundred square feet, without windows or any plumbing fixtures, on a lot that currently is developed with a residential structure or other lawfully existing nonresidential structure; provided that a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved by the director, and provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in Section 15.20.050. If the lot is served by a sanitary sewer system, the permit may allow the installation of windows and plumbing fixtures in the garage. The approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit for such a project shall be conditioned to require that a use restriction covenant, in a form acceptable to the city, that prevents the garage from being used for any purpose other than parking of vehicles and storage of personal property is recorded with the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder. Such covenant shall be submitted to the director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to the approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit for such garage, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city’s geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation; M. Submittal of applications for discretionary planning permits for structures or uses which are ancillary to the primary use of the lot or parcel, where there is no Attachments 1-154 possibility of any adverse impact upon soil stability. Examples of these types of applications include special use permits for minor, temporary uses and events; fence, wall and hedge permits that do not involve grading or the construction of retaining walls; permits for the keeping of large domestic animals and exotic animals; conditional use permits for the establishment of a use or activity at or on an existing structure where no structural modifications are required; and such other uses, activities and structures that the city geotechnical staff determines to have no potential for adverse impacts on landslide conditions; N. Minor projects on those lots which are currently developed with a residential structure, which do not involve new habitable space, which cannot be used as a gathering space and viewing area, and which do not constitute lot coverage; O. Permits issued pursuant to Section 15.20.110 of this chapter to connect existing structures with functional plumbing fixtures to an operational sewer system; P. The construction of residential buildings, accessory structures, and grading totaling less than one thousand cubic yards of combined cut and fill and including no more than fifty cubic yards of imported fill material on the sixteen (16) undeveloped lots in Zone 2 of the "Landslide Moratorium Area" as outlined in green on the landslide moratorium map on file in the Director’s office, identified as belonging to the plaintiffs in the case “Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 167 Cal. App. 4th 263, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 75 (Cal. App. 2 Dist., 2008)”; provided, that a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved by the Director, and provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in Section 15.20.050 of this Chapter. Such projects shall qualify for a landslide moratorium exception permit only if all applicable requirements of this Code are satisfied, and the parcel is served by a sanitary sewer system. Prior to the issuance of a landslide moratorium exception permit, the applicant shall submit to the Director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the City to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation. Q. The construction of residential buildings, accessory structures, and grading totaling less than one thousand cubic yards of combined cut and fill and including no more than fifty cubic yards of imported fill material on the remaining thirty-one (31) undeveloped lots in Zone 2 of the "Landslide Moratorium Area" as outlined in green on the landslide moratorium map on file in the Director’s office, identified with the letter U as the lots that were not the plaintiffs in the case “Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 167 Cal. App. 4th 263, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 75 (Cal. App. 2 Dist., 2008)”; provided, that a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved by the Director, and provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in Section 15.20.050 of this Chapter. Such projects shall qualify for a landslide moratorium exception permit only if all applicable Attachments 1-155 requirements of this Code are satisfied, and the parcel is served by a sanitary sewer system. Prior to the issuance of a landslide moratorium exception permit, the applicant shall submit to the Director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the City to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation. Section 7: Based upon the foregoing, Section 15.20.050 of Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (added language is underlined, and deleted language is in strikethrough) : Within the landslide moratorium area as identified in Section 15.20.020 of this chapter, the city shall require that appropriate landslide abatement measures be implemented as conditions of issuance of any permit issued pursuant to this chapter. With respect to proposed projects and uses requiring a landslide moratorium exception permit pursuant to Sections 15.20.040(B), (H), (K), (L), and (P), and (Q), which must satisfy all of the criteria set forth in this section, the conditions imposed by the city shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. If lot drainage deficiencies are identified by the director of public works, all such deficiencies shall be corrected by the applicant. B. If the project involves additional plumbing fixtures, or additions of habitable space which exceed two hundred square feet, or could be used as a new bedroom, bathroom, laundry room or kitchen, and if the lot or parcel is not served by a sanitary sewer system, septic systems shall be replaced with approved holding tank systems in which to dispose of on-site waste water. The capacity of the required holding tank system shall be subject to the review and approval of the city’s building official. For the purposes of this subsection, the addition of a sink to an existing bathroom, kitchen or laundry room shall not be construed to be an additional plumbing fixture. For those projects which involve additions of less than two hundred square feet in total area and which are not to be used as a new bedroom, bathroom, laundry room or kitchen, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant specifically agreeing that the addition of the habitable space will not be used for those purposes. Such covenant shall be submitted to the director for recordation prior to the issuance of a building permit. For lots or parcels which are to be served by a sanitary sewer system on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section (July 6, 2000), additional plumbing fixtures may be permitted and the requirement for a holding tank may be waived, provided that the lot or parcel is to be connected to the sanitary sewer system. If a sanitary sewer system is approved and/or under construction but is not yet operational at the time that a project requiring a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved, the requirement for a holding tank may Attachments 1-156 be waived, provided that the lot or parcel is required to be connected to the sanitary sewer system pursuant to Section 15.20.110 of this chapter, or by an agreement or condition of project approval. C. Roof runoff from all buildings and structures on the site shall be contained and directed to the streets or an approved drainage course. D. If required by the city geotechnical staff, the applicant shall submit a soils report, and/or a geotechnical report, for the review and approval of the city geotechnical staff. E. If the lot or parcel is not served by a sanitary sewer system, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to support and participate in existing or future sewer and/or storm drain assessment districts and any other geological and geotechnical hazard abatement measures required by the city. Such covenant shall be submitted to the director prior to the issuance of a building permit. F. If the lot or parcel is not served by a sanitary sewer system, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the city a sewer and storm drain easement on the subject property, as well as any other easement required by the city to mitigate landslide conditions. Such covenant shall be submitted to the director prior to the issuance of a building permit. G. A hold harmless agreement satisfactory to the city attorney promising to defend, indemnify and hold the city harmless from any claims or damages resulting from the requested project. Such agreement shall be submitted to the director prior to the issuance of a building permit. H. The applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to construct the project strictly in accordance with the approved plans; and agreeing to prohibit further projects on the subject site without first filing an application with the director pursuant to the terms of this chapter. Such covenant shall be submitted to the director for recordation prior to the issuance of a building permit. I. All landscaping irrigation systems shall be part of a water management system approved by the director of public works. Irrigation for landscaping shall be permitted only as necessary to maintain the yard and garden. J. If the lot or parcel is served by a sanitary sewer system, the sewer lateral that serves the applicant’s property shall be inspected to verify that there are no cracks, breaks or leaks and, if such deficiencies are present, the sewer lateral shall be repaired or reconstructed to eliminate them, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project that is being approved pursuant to the issuance of the moratorium exception permit. K. All other necessary permits and approvals required pursuant to this code or any other applicable statute, law or ordinance shall be obtained. Attachments 1-157 Section 8: Based on the foregoing, Section 15.20.060 of Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (added language is underlined, and deleted language is in strikethrough): A. Applicants for an exception to this chapter under Sections 15.20.040(B), (H), (K), (L), and (P), and (Q), shall file an application for a landslide moratorium exception permit with the director. The application shall be signed by the property owner, and shall include the following: 1. A letter, signed by the property owner, setting forth the reason for request, as well as a full description of the project; 2. Copies of a site plan, showing accurate lot dimensions; the location, dimensions, and heights of all existing and proposed structures; the location of the existing and proposed septic systems and/or holding tank systems; and the location of the existing and/or proposed sanitary sewer system, if the site is or will be served by a sanitary sewer system. The number of copies required shall be determined by the director; 3. Information satisfactory to the city’s geotechnical staff (including but not limited to geological, geotechnical, soils or other reports) reasonably required by the city to demonstrate that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation; 4. A fee as established by resolution of the city council; 5. If grading is proposed, a grading plan showing the topography of the lot and all areas of project cut and fill, including a breakdown of the earthwork quantities. B. A landslide moratorium exception permit application shall become null and void if, after submitting the required application to the director, the application is administratively withdrawn by the director because the application is allowed to remain incomplete by the applicant for a period which exceeds one hundred eighty days, or if the application is withdrawn by the applicant. Section 9: After the effective date of this Ordinance, its provisions shall apply to all Landslide Moratorium Exception permits and any subsequent development applications submitted on or after the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 10: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in the manner prescribed by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS __TH DAY OF ______ 2014. Attachments 1-158 _________________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________ CITY CLERK Attachments 1-159 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. ___ passed first reading on _______, 2014, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on __________, 2014, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: __________________________________ CITY CLERK Attachments 1-160