RPVCCA_SR_2010_01_05_04_Ord_502_2nd_ReadingCITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY~COUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS,AICP,DIRE .OF PLANNING,
BUILDING AND CODE ENFOR MENT
JANUARY 5,2010
REVISION TO PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2009-00007
.(CODE AMENDMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS-
MENTl;,FURTHER REVISIONS TO THE LANDSLIDE
MORATORIUM ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 15.20 OF THE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE)TO
ESTABLISH AN EXCEPTION CATEGORY TO ALLOW
FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SIXTEEN
(16)MONKS PLAINTIFFS'LOTS IN ZONE 2 TO
INCREASE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED QUANTITY OF
GRADING PER LOT FROM LESS THAN 50 CUBIC
YARDS TO LESS THAN 1,000 CUBIC YARDS
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER &
Project Manager:Kit Fox,Associate Planner~
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Ordinance No.502,further revising the City's Landslide Moratorium Ordinance to
establish an exception category to allow for the future development of the sixteen (16)
Monks plaintiffs'lots in Zone 2 to increase the maximum permitted quantity of grading per
lot from less than 50 cubic yards to less than 1,000 cubic yards.
DISCUSSION
On December 15,2009,the City Council received public testimony and introduced Ordinance
No.502 to further revise the City's Landslide Moratorium Ordinance to establish an
exception category to allow for the future development of the sixteen (16)Monks plaintiffs'
lots in Zone 2.An urgency ordinance for these same revisions (Ordinance No.501 U)was
4-1
MEMORANDUM:Moratorium Ordinance Revisions (Case No.ZON2009-00007)
January 5,2010
Page 2
also adopted at the December 15,2009,City Council meeting.Staff now presents the
non-urgency Ordinance No.502 for its second reading and adoption.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion,Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No.502,thereby
further revising the City's Landslide Moratorium Ordinance to establish an exception
category to allow for the future development of the sixteen (16)Monks plaintiffs'lots in
Zone 2 to increase the maximum permitted quantity of grading per lot from less than 50
cubic yards to less than 1,000 cubic yards.
Attachments:
•Draft Ordinance No.502
•Additional public correspondence (received at or since December 15,2009)
M:\Projects\ZON2009-00007 (Zone 2 Moratorium Revisions)\20100105_StaffRpt_CC.doc
4-2
ORDINANCE NO.502
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
ADOPTING FURTHER REVISIONS TO THE LANDSLIDE
MORATORIUM ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 15.20 OF THE RANCHO
PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE)TO ESTABLISH AN EXCEPTION
CATEGORY TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
SIXTEEN (16)MONKS PLAINTIFFS'LOTS IN ZONE 2 TO INCREASE
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED QUANTITY OF GRADING PER LOT
FROM LESS THAN 50 CUBIC YARDS TO LESS THAN 1,000 CUBIC
YARDS
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,so the
City Council must consider the actions that are necessary to comply with the Court of
Appeal's decision;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 and was
the purported catalyst for the filing of the Monks lawsuit;and,
WHEREAS,next action necessary to comply with the Court of Appeal's decision
was to enact revisions to the current Moratorium Ordinance to allow the development of
the Monks plaintiffs'sixteen (16)undeveloped lots in Zone 2;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 Initial Study
and determined that,by incorporating mitigation measures into the Negative
Declaration,there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Planning Case No.
ZON2009-00007 would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment.
Accordingly,a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for
public review for thirty (30)days between August 10,2009 and September 9,2009,and
notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law;and,
WHEREAS,after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code,the City Council conducted a public hearing on September 1,
2009,and September 15,2009,at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the proposed revisions to
Chapter 15.20 as set forth in the City Council Staff reports of those dates;and,
WHEREAS,at its September 15,2009,meeting,after hearing public testimony,
the City Council adopted Resolution No.2009-72 making certain findings related to the
4-3
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and adopting a
Mitigation Monitoring Program and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed
project;and,
WHEREAS,at its September 15,2009,meeting,after hearing public testimony,
the City Council adopted Ordinance No.498 to establish an exception category to allow
for the future development of the sixteen (16)Monks plaintiffs'lots in Zone 2;and,
WHEREAS,Ordinance No.498 became effective on October 15,2009;and,
WHEREAS,since the effective date of Ordinance No.498,three (3)Monks
plaintiffs have filed Landslide Moratorium Exception (LME)applications to develop new
homes on their undeveloped lots,but none of these proposals are consistent with the
grading limitation of less than fifty cubic yards «50 CY)of grading that was imposed by
Ordinance No.498;and,
WHEREAS,as a result of discussions between City Staff,the City Attorney,the
Monks plaintiffs'attorneys and their geotechnical consultant,it was agreed that the
most expeditious solution to this conflict was to increase the maximum permitted
quantity of grading associated with each of the Monks plaintiffs'LME applications.
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 further
amendments to Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Municipal Code.
Section 2:The City Council finds that the further 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 the
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 further amendments to
Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Municipal Code are consistent Court of Appeal's
decision in Monks v.City of Rancho Palos Verdes in that they will allow the potential
future development of the sixteen (16)Monks plaintiffs'undeveloped lots within Zone 2
of the Landslide Moratorium Area with new,single-family residences,thereby achieving
parity with the rights enjoyed by the owners of the developed lots in Zone 2 of the
Landslide Moratorium Area.
Section 4:The City Council further finds,based upon its own independent
review,that there is no substantial evidence that the further amendments to Title 15
would result in new significant environmental effects,or a substantial increase in the
Ordinance No.502
Page 2 of 7
4-4
severity of the effects,as previously identified the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
adopted through Resolution No.2009-72 in conjunction with Ordinance No.498 for
amendments to Title 15 of the Municipal Code,since the new amendments still provide
regulations that would minimize impacts to properties within the City and the
environment by protecting surrounding properties from the impacts of the potential
future development of the Monks plaintiffs'sixteen (16)undeveloped lots.An
Addendum (No.1)to the prior Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A'.The City Council hereby finds,based on its own
independent judgment,that the facts stated in the Addendum are true because the
revisions to Title 15 of the Municipal Code will provide for the development on the
Monks plaintiffs'lots in a manner that will have no significant adverse environmental
impacts.
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,Paragraph P of Section 15.20.040 of
Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is amended to
read as follows:
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.
Section 7:After the effective date of this Ordinance,it shall apply to all
Landslide Moratorium Exception permits and any subsequent development applications
submitted on or after the effective date of this Ordinance.
Section 8: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.
Ordinance No.502
Page 3 of7
4-5
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2010.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
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.502 passed first reading on December 15,2009,was duly and
regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on
January 5,2010,and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY CLERK
Ordinance No.502
Page 4 of 7
4-6
ORDINANCE NO.502 -EXHIBIT lA'
ADDENDUM NO.1 TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JANUARY 5,2010
Project Background:On September 15,2009,the City Council adopted Resolution
No.2009-72,thereby adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for amendment to Title
15 of the City's Municipal Code (Ordinance No.498).Prior to its adoption,the Mitigated
Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment from August 10,2009,through
September 9,2009.In adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration,the City Council
found that:1)the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in the manner required
by law and that there was no substantial evidence that,with appropriate mitigation
measures,the approval of the proposed Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance
Revisions (Planning Case No.ZON2009-00007)would result in a significant adverse
effect upon the environment;2)that the Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance
Revisions were consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and with the
underlying Residential,~1 DU/acre and Residential,1-2 DU/acre land use designations
within Zone 2;and 3)that with the appropriate mitigation measures,which require
Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis for new residences;limitations on exterior
illumination;imposition of City and regional restrictions upon fugitive dust control and
construction vehicle emissions;preparation of biological surveys for properties identified
as containing sensitive vegetation communities;protection of cultural resources during
grading operations;completion of geotechnical analysis of any proposed grading and
construction prior to building permit issuance;imposition of fire protection requirements
upon the construction of all new structures in accordance with the City's most recently-
adopted Building Code;control and treatment of site runoff both during and after
construction;limitations on construction hours and haul routes;and connection of all
new structures to the Abalone Cove Sewer System,the Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium
Ordinance Revisions would not have a significant impact on the environment.
Proposed Amendments:The City Council is currently reviewing further amendments
to Title 15 that would increase the permissible quantity of grading associated with the
future development of each of the Monks plaintiffs lots in Zone 2 from less than fifty
cubic yards (Le.,"minor grading")to less than one thousand cubic yards.The proposed
amendments are intended to facilitate the timely review and approval of the
development of new homes on the Monks plaintiffs'lots,while continuing to balance the
impacts of said development upon the surrounding community with the potentially
significant adverse financial impacts to the City as a whole if this development is not
permitted to occur,as required by the Court of Appeal.
Purpose:This Addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration is
being prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)Guidelines which allows for the lead agency to prepare an addendum to an
adopted negative declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary
or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a
Ordinance No.502
Page 50f7
4-7
subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.Pursuant to CEQA Section
15162,no subsequent negative declaration shall be prepared for the project unless the
lead agency determines,on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole
record,one or more of the following:
(1)Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions
of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new,significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects;
(2)Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous negative
declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;or,
(3)New information of substantial importance identifies one or more significant
effects not discussed in the previous negative declaration,significant effects
previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous negative declaration,mitigation measures or alternatives previously
found not to be feasible or not analyzed in the negative declaration would be
feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but the
project proponents decline to adopt of the measure or alternative.
FINDINGS ON REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT REVISIONS:
1.Staff analyzed the proposed revisions to determine if any impacts would result
from the proposed changes allowing an increase in the maximum permitted
quantity of grading per lot from less than 50 cubic yards to less than 1,000 cubic
yards.This analysis included review of the proposed revisions by the City
Geologist.The City Council has independently reviewed this item and has
determined that,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162,a new Mitigated
Negative Declaration is not required for this revision because the proposed
amendments will not result in any new significant environmental effects:
(a)The proposed revisions do not result in any new significant environmental
effects and,like Ordinance No.498,no unmitigatable significant impacts
have been identified.The increase in allowable grading does not present
new significant environmental impacts because it still only allows for the
future development of each of the Monks plaintiffs'lots with a single-
family residence,in a manner that is consistent with the development
standards established by the Portuguese Bend Community Association.
Furthermore,the City Geologist determined that the proposed revisions
do not present any new significant unmitigatable impacts.Therefore,the
proposed revisions do not represent a substantial change in the project,
and will not result in new significant environmental impacts or a
substantial increase in the severity of any impacts.
(b)The proposed revisions will not result in any significant environmental
impacts,and the circumstances under which the project is being
Ordinance No.502
Page 6 of?
4-8
undertaken have not substantially changed since the CEQA determination
was made for Ordinance No.498.The scope of allowable development
(a single-family residence on each of the sixteen (16)lots)remains the
same,and there are no changes with respect to the circumstances under
which the revisions are undertaken that will require major revisions of the
previous Mitigated Negative Declaration.
(c)No new information of substantial importance,which was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at
the time the prior Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted,identifies a
significant environmental effect.Because the proposed revisions would
not result in any new or more severe environmental impacts that those
associated with Ordinance No.498,there is no need for new or
substantially modified mitigation measures.
Therefore,pursuant to CEQA,the City Council finds that no further environmental
review is necessary other than the City Council's adoption of this Addendum No.1
M:\Projecls\ZON2009-00007 (Zone 2 Moratorium Revisions)\20100105_DraftOrdinance_CC.doc
Ordinance No.502
Page?of?4-9
Page 1 of 1
Kit Fox
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Friday,December 11,2009 11 :14 AM
To:'Carla Morreale'
Cc:'Teri Takaoka';'Kit Fox'
Subject:FW:12.Revision to Planning Case No.ZON2009-00007 (Code Amendment and Environmental
Assessment)
From:Gordon Leon [mailto:gordon.leon@gmail.com]
sent:Friday,December 11,2009 11:09 AM
To:cc@rpv.com;Cassie Jones
Subject:12.Revision to Planning Case No.ZON2009-00007 (Code Amendment and Environmental Assessment)
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
I am very concerned about the proposal for a blanket increase in the allowable grading within the fragile
Portuguese Bend Landslide area (zone 2)without sufficient study or environmental impact assessment.
1000 Cubic Yards of grading implies digging over 6 feet deep under the maximum allowable house in
Portuguese Bend.Excessive grading will have the most significant impact on the overall stability of the
landslide area.Further,the decision regarding the 16 Monk lots will likely set president for the
remaining lots in Zone 2.I understand that the court has mandated building permits in the Portuguese
Bend Community,but you also have an obligation to protect the other residents in the Community.
Relaxing safeguards with know impacts to the area's stability is contrary to that duty.Please do not
allow a blanket increase to the grading requirements for the 16 Monk lots.
Thank you.
Gordon Leon
310-463-9244
12/14/2009 4-10
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
¢l'qnt:Monday,December 14,20093:38 PM
'Carla Morreale'
Cc:'Teri Takaoka'
SUbJect:FW:"Urgency Ordinance"in PB
From:Marianne Hunter [mailto:2hunter@cox.net]
sent:Monday,December 14,2009 3:30 PM
To:City Council
Cc:cassie Jones;Tim Kelly
Subject:"Urgency Ordinance"in PB
William &Marianne Hunter
http://www.hunter:~dios.cQ.m
Dear City Council;
It has come to our attention that there is an "Urgency Ordinance"to be considered that would increase the amount of permitted
grading on the 16 Portuguese Bend lots to geometrically expand from 50 yards to 1000 yards.We urge you to reject this request at
this time.
We.many members of our community and members of surrounding communities are understandably very concerned about the
f "5,both long and shorttenn,ofthe building process and end results of such.That is why we have urgently requested the City to
p...__....rm an EIR rather than an MND,because only an EIR can determine what it means to allow grading in this fragile community.,
The City is under considerable pressure,we understand that.However,we believe the City is risking both untold financial loss to
itself (and thus all RPV residents)as well as the homes and safety of those whose homes are vulnerable to the landslide areas.
Should PV Dr.South fail,or homes in PB slide,the financial repercussions to the City,and quality oflife considerations for
residents is incalculable.The ensuing lawsuits (no pun intended)could be massive.(Could Terranea sue the City for not taking
proper safeguards in a known hazard area to protect access to it's business?)
This "Urgency Ordinance"is just the fll'St of many,to be sure,asking for special treatment and pushing for more than allowed.
What the City must decide is if they are going to stand for what is right,which is public safety first,or to expediency and threat.100
families have lived carefully on this landslide for decades.Shall all our restraint and limitations go for nothing as our new
neighbors throw caution to the wind and gamble with our homes as they gambled with their moratorium-bought lots before?
If you are not going to tum down this request for extra grading,then,at the minimum,it should be determined by geo-engineers
without bias.Crenshaw failed due to earth movement and water;the 18th hole at Trump's failed due to man made mistakes,and
both situations were engineered.It is unconscionable to proceed without first employing every method of measuring the potential
effects when tampering with a known landslide.
Please say ''No''to this urgency ordinance.The 100 families who make up this community should have rights to safety and the
enjoyment of our investments equal to those 16 who have purchased lots in ignorance or in spite ofthe fragility ofthis place.
Respectfully,
v ····lam and Marianne Hunter
12/14/2009 /d-4-11
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teri Takaoka [terit@rpv.com]
Wednesday,December 16,2009 11:16 AM
'Kit Fox'
FW:Revision to Planning Case ZON2009-00007-Further Revisions to the Landslide
Moratorium Ordinance
-----Original Message-----
From:Carolynn Petru [mailto:carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,December 15,2009 7:57 AM
To:'Carla Morreale'
Cc:'Teri Takaoka'
Subject:FW:Revision to Planning Case ZON2009-00007-Further Revisions to the Landslide
Moratorium Ordinance
-----Original Message-----
From:Jeremy Davies [mailto:jdavies@kuboaa.com]
Sent:Monday,December 14,2009 9:19 PM
To:CC@rpv.com
Subject:Revision to Planning Case ZON2009-00007-Further Revisions to the
Landslide Moratorium Ordinance
Dear Mayor Wolowicz,Mayor Pro Tern Long,Council Members Campbell,
Misetich and Stern,
Item 12 of your agenda for the your December 15,2009 meeting proposes
approving an "Exception Category"for the MND which was approved and
adopted on September 15,2009.This MND to the Landslide Moratorium
Ordinance was approved only after due public discussion and input,
including input and agreement of the Monks plaintiffs.You now propose
to increase grading per lot from 50 cubic yards to up to 1,000 cubic
yards,a twenty fold increase without any discussion or consideration
of the environmental impacts of such a measure in this unstable area.
I and many of the homeowners in Portuguese Bend,as well as certain
lot owners,have requested that before the issuance of any permits for
new residences be issued there should be a full EIR carried out taking
into account all the special circumstances of this area and in
accordance with the requirements of CEQA.Your latest proposed change
to grading allowances ignores any additional environmental impacts of
such changes and continues to be contrary to CEQA.I believe that it
would be prudent and advisable for the City to not make any additional
arbitrary modifications to a City approved MND until a full EIR has
been carried out and not to treat this modification as a matter of
"Urgency".
Respectfully yours,
Jeremy Davies
1
4-12
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Page 1 of 1
Kit Fox
Carol W.Lynch [CLynch@rwglaw.com]
Tuesday,December 15,200910:12 AM
kitf@rpv.com
FW:Correspondence re Item 12 on 12/15/09 City Council Agenda (Revision to Planning Case
No.ZON2009-00007)
Attachments:Burton Letter.pdf
-----Original Message-----
From:Yen Hope [mailto:yhope@gilchristrutter.com]
sent:Monday,December 14,20096:22 PM
To:stevew@rpv.com;tom.long@rpv.com;Brian.Campbell@rpv.com;Anthony.Misetich@rpv.com;
Douglas.Stern@rpv.com
Cc:citymanager@rpv.com;cityclerk@rpv.com;Carol W.Lynch;Ginetta Giovinco;Rochelle Browne
Subject:Correspondence re Item 12 on 12/15/09 City Council Agenda (Revision to Planning case No.ZON2009-
00007)
Attached please find a letter from Mr.Martin Burton regarding Item 12 on the December 15,2009 City Council
Agenda (Revision to Planning Case No.ZON2009-00007).A hard copy of the letter will follow by mail.
Sincerely,
Yen N.Hope,Esq.
Gilchrist &Rutter Professional Corp.
1299 Ocean Avenue,Suite 900
Santa Monica,CA 90401
Tel:(310)393-4000
Fax:(310)394-4700
Unless otherwise expressly stated,nothing stated herein is intended or wrilten to provide any tax advice on any malter,and nothing stated herein can
be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer.
a,g 3=C 3=C
Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this message.
If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person),you may not copy or deliver this
message to anyone.In such case you should destroy this message,and notify us immediately.If you or your employer do not consent to Internet e-mail
messages of this kind,please advise us immediately.Opinions,conclusions and other information expressed in this message are not given or endorsed
by my firm or employer unless otherwise indicated by an authorized representative independent of this message.
NOTICE:This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information.If you
are not the intended recipient of this communication,or an employee or agent responsible for
delivering this communication to the intended recipient,please advise the sender by reply
email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing
the contents.Thank you.
12/15/2009 4-13
LAW OFFICES·
GILCHRIST &RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL OORPORATION
WILSHIRE PALISADES 8UllDING
1299 OCEAN AVENUE.SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA 90401-1000
December 14,2009
VIA EMAIL AND U.s.MAIL
Mayor Steve Wolowicz
Mayor Pro Tern Thomas D.Long
Councilmember Brian Campbell
Council member Anthony M.Misetich
Councilrnember'Douglas W.Stern
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
TELEPHONE (310)393-4000
FACSIMILE (310)394-4700
EO-MAil:mburlonOgllchr1sl...tter.com
Re:Proposed Ordinance Adopting Further Revisions To Landslide Moratorium
Ordinance To Establish An Exception Category To Allow For The Future
Development Of The Sixteen(16)Monks Plaintiffs'Lots In Zone 2 To Increase
The Maximum Permitted Quantity Of Grading Per Lot From Less Than 1,000
Cubic Yards ("Proposed Amendment").City Council Hearing:Tuesday,
December 15,2009
Dear Mayor Wolowicz,Mayor Pro Tern Long,and Councilmembers Campbell,Misetich,and
Stem:
This office represents Dr.Lewis A.Enstedt,a resident of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes,and the Portuguese Bend Alliance For Safety (the "Alliance"),an unincorporated
association.We are writing to object to the Proposed Amendment referenced above,which
would further revise the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance.
As you are aware,on September 15,2009,the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council ("City
Council")adopted Ordinance No.498 (the "Landslide Revisions"or "Project"),which revised
the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance to create an exemption category within the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes ("RPV,"collectively with City Council,"City")Municipal Code to allow for the
future development ofthe sixteen (16)Monks plaintiffs'lots in Zone 2,and Resolution No.
2009~72,which certified a mitigated negative declaration related thereto ("August MND"or
"August Mitigated Negative Declaration").Dr.Enstedt and the Alliance objected to the
August MND as failing to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act,Cal.Pub.Res.Code §§21000,et seq.("CEQA"),and its guidelines,14 Cal.Code
Regs.§§15000,et seq.(the "CEQA Guidelines")in that it failed to fully identify,analyze and
mitigate the significant environmental impacts arising from the Landslide Revisions.
4-14
LAW oFFicEs
GILOHRIST &RU'1."J:'ER
PHOFESSJONAI,OORPORA'l.'lON
Mayor and City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
December 14,2009
Page 2
Now,only three months after the City adopted the Landslide Revisions and certified the
August MND,the City is seeking to amend the Landslide Revisions by increasing the maximum
permitted quantity of grading per lot from 50 cubic yards to 1,000 cubic yards,a staggering
increase of2000%!However,the City again fails to comply with the CEQA requirements.
Rather than fully analyzing the impact of the Proposed Amendment,which drastically changes
one of the main assumptions underlying the Geology/Soils mitigation measures in the August
MND -that the proposed project would result in no more than 800 cubic yards of grading
(August MND at p.11)-the City attempts to simply adopt an addendum to the August MND
("Addendum").
The Proposed Amendment and Addendum represent yet another effort by the City to
circumvent CEQA requirements in order to improperly placate the Monks plaintiffs,The
December 15,2009 staffreport ("Staff Reporf')essentially admits this fact when it states that
its recommendation that the City adopt the Proposed Amendment is based on the "City's
possible exposure to financial damages as a result of denying [the Landslide Moratorium
Exception Permits]..."(Staff Report at p.12-3.)However,this rationale is insufficient and
flawed for the reasons set forth below.
First,the City has a rational basis for choosing to limit development to minor grading
which is not addressed in the Proposed Amendment or Addendum.Among other things,Zone 2
is an acknowledged geographically unstable area.For example,the August MND admits "[t]he
soils of the Palos Verdes Peninsula are 0 generally known to be expansive and occasionally
unstable."(August MND at p.11.)Indeed,the conclusion that the Landslide Revisions would
result in no more than "800 cubic yards of grading related to the construction ofup to sixteen
(16)new single-family residences"served as a key piece of evidence to justify the August
MND's finding of no significant impact in its Geography/Soils analysis (which finding was itself
flawed even with minor grading).(August MND at p.11.)Yet,despite the fact that the
Proposed Amendment would dramatically increase the total quantity of grading from 800 cubic
yards to 16,000 cubic yards,the City wholly fails to evaluate and analyze the impact of this
drastic increase.The change wrought by the Proposed Amendment,especially given its scope,
merits additional environmental review.
Second,the Addendum provides no analysis or evidentiary support for its conclusion that
the Proposed Amendment will "not result in any new significant environmental effects."(Staff
Report at p.12-23.)In fact,although the Addendum alleges "the City Geologist determined that
the proposed revisions do not present any significant unmitigatable impacts,"(Staff Report at 12-
23),this conclusion is not only not supported by the evidence,but nowhere does this conclusion
even appear in the letter from the City Geologist attached to the Staff Report.The City
Geologist's letter fails to state that the Proposed Amendment does not "present any significant
4-15
LAW OFFices
GILOHRIST &RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Mayor and City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
December 14,2009
Page 3
unmitigatable impacts."Instead,the letter recommends ''that the amount of grading be evaluated
on a case by case basis"and notes that "[a]finding that the proposed grading will not aggravate
the existing conditions will need to be made by the geotechnical consultant of record."(Staff
Report at p.12-8.)
Third,the Staff Report notes that the City faces "possible exposure to financial damages"
because the Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit ("LMEs")applications submitted thus far
"each propose quantities of grading that exceed the definition of 'minor grading'...[and]cannot
be approved by Staff under the current [Municipal Code]."(Staff Report at p.12-3.)However,
the grading restriction in the Landslide Revisions does not constitute a taking.The restriction
does not deprive the Monks plaintiffs of all economically viable use of the property.(Kavanau v.
Santa Monica Rent Control Bd.,16 Cal.4th 761,774 (1997).)Nor does it satisfy any ofthe other
factors articulated in Penn Central Transp.Co.v.New York City,438 U.S.104,124 (1978)and
subsequent cases which would indicate a taking.(Id.)Rather,the Monks plaintiffs are clearly·
able to economically use their property even with the 50 cubic yard restriction.
Just because the plaintiffs desire larger houses does not mean they are entitled to them.
This puts the cart before the horse.Rather than the City amending its ordinance,the Monks
plaintiffs simply need to amend their LME applications.As the City itself notes,"the residences
might be re-designed ...so as to 'work with'the slope of the lots and require less site grading."
(Staff Report at p.12-4.)That one possible redesign might be incompatible with private
architectural guidelines is not a reason for the City to amend the Landslide Revisions,when the
Landslide Revisions themselves do not constitute a taking.The City should not amend the
Landslide Revisions simply because the plaintiffs'applications cannot be approved in their
present form.
Finally,and most importantly,the Monks plaintiffs have waived their right to object to
the Landslide Revisions altogether.The restriction on grading to 50 cubic yards was clearly
spelled out in the MND.There was no attempt on the part of the City to hide the restriction.
Counsel for the Monks plaintiffs was present at all the City Council hearings at which the
Landslide Revisions,which permitted only minor grading,were discussed and ultimately
adopted.Counsel for the Monks plaintiffs,as well as the Monks plaintiffs themselves,had
numerous opportunities to object to the limitations on the quantity of grading before the
Landslide Revisions were adopted.Yet,neither he nor any of the Monks plaintiffs objected to
the Landslide Revisions.To the contrary,counsel for the Monks plaintiffs indicated he had
carefully reviewed the Landslide Revisions,and advocated for and enthusiastically championed
their adoption.The Monks plaintiffs cannot now threaten the City with a takings claim for taking
an action they themselves supported.
4-16
LAWOFFJCES
GU..CHRIST&RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Mayor and City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
December 14,2009
Page 4
In sum,we urge the City Council not to adopt the Proposed Amendment and Addendum.
By adopting the Proposed Amendment and Addendum,the City is endangering the environment
of the Portuguese Bend area and putting the health and safety of its citizens at risk.Ifthe City is
truly concerned about a taking being found,at a minimum,the City should await a decision from
the trial judge in the Monks case.It cannot,and should not,evade the CEQA requirements and
simply adopt the Proposed Amendment to appease the Monks plaintiffs,especially where the
plaintiffs themselves have waived their right to object to the grading limitation imposed by the
Landslide Revisions.
Please include this letter in the record of proceedings on this matter.
Very truly yours,
GILCHRIST &RUTTER
u:;;~~
___._.....Marti:rrM:-rr-uttOn
OftheFinn
199906 1
4811.001
cc:Carolyn Lehr,City Manager
Carol Lynch,Esq.,City Attorney
Carla Morreale,City Clerk
Ginetta Giovinco,Esq.
Rochelle Brown,Esq.
Yen N.Hope,Esq.
4-17
.-._---_._---------::----------_.---------.-.__._--------._------------------_.._------------._-_._--.._-----_.-.-
Scott W.Wellman
Scott R.Warrell
Derek Banduccl
David Van Sambeek
Matt Krepper
of counsel ..StU&1per*.CIl;QV P am ZottiArsoadmittedin NY
WELLMAN ,&WARREN LLP
ATTORNEYS AI'LAW
24411 Ridge Route,Suite 200
Laguna Hills,.California 92653
December 15,2009
Tel.949/580-3737
:f,ax ,249/58.0-3738
stuartmiller@learthlink.net
Mayor Stefan Wolowicz
Mayor Pro Tem Thomas Long .
Counci1memper Brian Campbell
'Councilmember Anthony Misetich
·Councilmember Douglas Stem
Re:Proposed amendment to Landslide Moratorium Ordinance
DeE!!'Mayor Wolowicz,Mayor .Pro Tem Long,and Councilmembers Campbell,Misetich,and
Stem:
We represent the plaintiffs in Monks v.City ofRancho Palos Verdes.We are writing in
response to the letter from Martin Burton,Esq.,in which he expresses opposition to the proposed
amendment to Chapter 15.20 ofthe Municipal Code.This matter is on the City Council's agenda
tonight.Please make this letter part of the administrative record.-
Mr.Burton is incorre~t in a number of critical respects.
First,as we all know from the decision ofthe Court of Appeal,Zone 2 is not "an
acknowledged geographically unstable area."There has never been any evidence to support Mr.
Burton's characterization of Zone 2.
.Second,Mr.Burton does not understand the status ofthe Monks litigation.His argument
that "the M(Jnks plaintiffs are clearly able to economically use their property even with the 50
cubic yard restriction,"whether true or not,is ofno relevance.The City has already taken the .
plaintiffs'properties.It no longer has the option ofavoiding a taking by allowin~a minimal·use.
'Third,Mr.Burton writes,"If the City is truly concerned about a taking being found,at.8.
minimum,the·City should await a q.ecision froni the trial judge in the Monks case."A taking has
already been found in the Monks case,and the trial judge has no authority to rule otherwise.
Fourth,"the Monks plaintiffs have not "waived their right to objectto the Landslide
Revisions altogetl).er."Whether and how the City avoids the obligation to purchase the plaintiffs'
properties is not our direct concern.We prefer a purchase at fair market value,and llave never
acknowledged that the current state of the ordinance suffices to excuse the City from purchasing .
the properties.On the contrary,it is our position that the limitation of 50 cubic yards of grading.
.does not excuse the City from the obligation to buy the land.Other landowners in the City are .
allowed up to 1,000 cubic yards of grading,and there is no reason the Monks plaintiffssh01l1d not
have the same right..
Fifth,we have neither "advocated for [nor]enthusiastically championed"the amendment
authorizing 50 cubic yards of grading.
4-18
....._..-.-_.---------._--_._.,._--------_._----_.._._-_._-----_.__.._..---._._._-------_._._.------'"
City Council
Re:Proposed amendment to Landslide Moratorium Ordinance
December 15,2009
page 2
.Sixth,the amendment will not "increase the total quantity of grading ...to'16,000 cubic
yards."Although a maximum of 1,000 cubic yards will be allowed on each lot,there is no reason
to believe any lot owner will grade that much..The three permit applications already filed,which
are described in the staff report,propose an average of only 450 cubic yards per lot..
Seventh,Mr.Burton asserts that there are "significant environmental impacts arising
from"the proposed amendment,but he identifies none ofthem.In fact,his assertion of
undefined environmental harm is belied elsewh~re in his letter,when he acknowledges that "a
finding that the proposed grading will not aggravate the existing conditions will '.'.be made by
the geotechnical consultant of record."..
In short,we think i~is in the City's best interest to enact the proposed amendment without
.delay.
.,..very iiiilY·YOurs,
"------~---
Scott Wellman
.~~
Stuart Miller
4-19
Page 1 of3
Kit Fox
From:Carol W.Lynch [CLynch@rwglaw.com]
Sent:Tuesday,December 15,2009 2:41 PM
To:kitf@rpv.com
Subject:FW:Agenda item 12
I wonder if Jim Lancaster can come to the meeting tonight.
-----Original Message-----
From:jim_knight [mailto:jim_knight@juno.com]
sent:Tuesday,December 15,2009 2:37 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Agenda item 12
TO:The Mayor and Council members
FROM:Jim Knight
DA TE:12-12-09
RE:Revision to LME,Agenda item12
Dear Mayor and Council members
Below I have listed some concerns regarding agenda item 12 or the Urgency
Ordinance.
1)The ordinance does not completely comply with the City Geologist's report.
A)Jim Lancaster specifically stated that the modification of grading should not apply to
import of material.From his Dec.8,2009 report:"Generally,the grading will be confined to
the redistribution of earthmaterials within a single lot or exporting of materials from the site.
Import of raw earthmaterials for the use of fill should not exceed the 50 cubic yard threshold
(this does not include construction materials such as wall backfill granular materials or
underslab granular materials)."The ordinance does not make this distinction as to types of
grading.
B)Jim Lancaster also recommends in that report It•••that the amount of grading be
evaluated on a case by case basis in combination with the subject lot's geotechnical reports,
proposed grading plan and potential impact to adjacent properties.'The ordinance does not
condition approval on a case by case basis nor require analysis of potential impacts to
adjacent properties.
C)In the May 15,2007 Report dealing with the Portuguese Bend Landslide from
Zieser Kling,the City geologist states "From a risk assessment standpoint,it is our
professional opinion that any grading above the 20 cubic yard threshold could raise the risk
above an acceptable level".What has changed in the geotechnical opinion that the City
Geologist now allows a 50 fold increase in grading?
2)Geological standards of approval for the proposed urgency ordinance uses language that
is vague.What is the definition of "aggravate"and "the existing situation"mean?Do these
terms have any quantifiable definition?Is "aggravation"and the "existing situation"only
referring to the applicant's lot?Or does it include "aggravation"beyond the lot boundaries?Is
12/15/2009 4-20
I
'-
Page 2 of3
the existing situation only the lot in question or the known landslide complex in which the lot is
being developed?Is the ordinance consistent with minimum standards of practice as
exercised within the geotechnical community?Is there any concern about geology beyond the
boundaries of the applicant's lot?
City geologists have rendered an opinion that development within areas of landslide
hazards is unwise unless the landslide instability can be mitigated to a level consistent with at
least the minimum standards of practice as exercised within the professional geologic and
geotechnical community.(Zieser Kling report May 15,2007).Does the ordinance comply with
this standard?
3)There is existing litigation challenging the MND's compliance with CEQA guidelines.This
MND is being used as being compliant with CEQA to proceed with application approvals.
How can the city proceed with a pending litigation that challenges the city's use of this MND?
Technically the MND may have standing until a court orders differently,but as a practical
matter what will be the consequences to an approved application if a new EIR changes the
playing rules and requires further mitigations?I.e.,there are serious storm drain issues in the
community that could need mitigation from any further hardscaping of accumulative
development.Will taxpayers have to compensate the new residents if new requirements
cause additional expense as a result of using this MND instead of a court ordered EIR?
Taking the current course of action assumes the court will reject the request for a full EIR.
4)What is the basis for stating the increasing allowable earth movement by 20 fold in a known
landslide area "does not present substantial new information of significant impacts caused by
the project"?
5)The Urgency Ordinance does not address the full project as described in the MND.The
City has acknowledged that it cannot treat these 16 litigants any differently than anyone else
in Zone 2.So in reality the ordinance should apply to all lot owners in Zone 2 which is
accumulatively a significant impact that the urgency ordinance for the 16 litigant's lots does
not address.It also looks a lot like spot zoning.And the addendum to the MND does not
match the urgency ordinance in scope.The urgency ordinance only address the 16 litigants
lots yet the MND project description is all of the lots in Zone 2.Even the scope of the project
within the MND intermingles the 16 litigants with the entire project of Zone 2.This is a direct
result of segmenting the project under the MND as between the 16 litigants and all lot owners
of Zone 2.
I respectfully request that all of these questions and issues be fully addressed in your
deliberations of this agenda item.
Thank you,
Jim Knight
12/15/2009 4-21
Page 3 of3
BarLCI~itLoan
~~~g!<l:1~h·LARP1J'~nQwJQ1:fl~!<r~gitlQillLwj!hfl:1~tl:1p.PIQYl:!l,
NOTICE:This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information.If you
are not the intended recipient of this communication,or an employee or agent responsible
for delivering this communication to the intended recipient,please advise the sender by
reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or
disclosing the contents.Thank you.
12/15/2009 4-22
RECEI'VED
MAY 242007
_~ZEISER
_KLING:~.._C-ukants,In~.
May t5,200?
Mr.Joel R.ojas
CITY OF :RANCHO PALO$VEJ.U)ES
)094&Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos 'fel'df:'S,CA 90275 ..5391
PLANNING,BUILDING &:
OODE ENPORCEMENt
Subject:~l()gi¢and Geotechnical ~UU()~lte~i1\~Development Within the Landslide
MoratPrlum }\rea,Rancho Palos Verdes,California
.-
Dear Mr.Rojas:
At your request and authorization,our finn has been tasked '\\jth providing this geologic at}d
geoteclmical opinion paper regarding development within the city's.current landslide moratorium
area.This paper intends to address the folloWing general questions:
1)From a geologic and geotechnical engineering perspective,should the City continu~to
"prohibit new construction on vacant lots Within the landslide moratorium area?
2)From a geologic and geotechnical enginee~g perspective,is it detrimental to the
landslide moratorium area to continue to all<>wexistingresidents to add minor square footage
ant improvements to their existing homes,such asthe 600 square :feet maximum allowance
that currently exists?
3)Should such rules be the same in the blue -~.asthey are for the red area?
We have beellas~edto approach the above qu~ti()l$fi'Qm ageologic and geotechnical engineering
perspective based on our knowledge of thegeolQgy ofthe $ora,tonurn.areas;all-assessmelit of the
cttn'ent ancipotential movement witltinthe area,and past and present citypoiicies within the
landslide moratorium areas.
First ofall,we would like to make our basic position regarding developmentQr building within any
area of landslide hazard very clear.From a purely geologic perspective,it is our opinion that
development within areas oflandslide hazards is unWise at any'time unless the landslide instability
can be nUtigated to a level consistent with at least the minimum code and stanciards of practice as
exercised within the professional geologic and geotechnical community.It should be understood that
by developing in an area of landslides or potential landsliding there are inherent risks to life safety
1221 E.Dyer Road,Suite 105.Santa Ana,Califorl"lia 92705 (714)755-1355 Fax (114)155·1366
The Trusted Name in Geotechnical Consulting For Over Twenty Years
4-23
PN 97082-1364
-
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
May 15,2007
and property that vary depending on the type and scale ofbuilding and/or development,and'location
and geologic enviromnent involved.When disoussing the topjc of'risk herein we are referring te the
potential of increasing geolegic instability and the petential for creating or increasing unsafe
conditions With respect to property and/or the health and ·safety ofthe populace.People who choose
to live,within known landslide areas are exposing themselves to a higher degree ofrisk than those
whe live elsewhere.
The inherent nsl<s involved with development in a lanelslide area inc1'eMC'with the scale of the
proposed imprevement.In general,a minor addition with tittle or no grading or landfurm
mOOitication poses a lower risk compared to a large development with.1l'H.Yor grading and associated
landform modifiCl,ltion.A minor addition that introd~1'10 additio~irrigation or water.USQ poses
less risk than.a subdivision comprised ofnumerous new hemesthatwould 6kely introduce additional
water into the groundwater system.
The above discussion is simplistic and does not cover
a landslide area,however it has been utilized as a basis
Raneho'Palos Verd¢s Landslide moratorium area.
tential hazatds ortisks to development in
•our continued discussion directed to the
Question #1:From a geologic and geotechnical engineeuingpers.pective,shQuld we continue to
pronibitnewconstruction on vacant lots within the landslide moratorium area?
The obvious answer to this question is that people ~holj:ve within.an active or petentially active
landslide area ate subjeot to a higher degree ofrisk than people who five outside ofsuch areas.By
·allowingnew development to ()ccut within an area withlmo'WIi bigher riskto life safety and pmperty~
more people w()uldbe potentiall~exposed to that risk.'
Beyond this simple evaluation is to consider the varying rlsk:s associateEl with different development
actions.In order to explore this further,it should be Wlderstood that aU areas within the latJ;dsIide
ffiGratorlum atea are SUbject to some degree ofrisk.Some ateas are 'associated with active landslide
movement and are subject to an eve»higher degree ofrisk.Stillotherareashaveexperienced little or
no perceived movement.However~even with little to no pereeivedmoveme»t,these areas are still
considered to be below the accepted geotechnical industry standatdofpra,ctieeand the building code
level ofstability.
First.of all we.would like to address the issues of~ding to I'ilreate building pads.Asset forth by
Municipal Code section 17.76.040,a minor gradingpennitis to be issuedforgradinginexcess of20
cubie yards but less than 50 cubic yardS in any twe yearperiod~on a slope ofless than 35 pt}rcent or
which results in an excavation or fill of more then three feet but less than 5 feet.From a risk
assessment standpoint,it is our professional opinion that any grading above the"20 cubic yard
threshold could raise the dskabove an unacceptable level.On the other hand~limited grading comEl
be considered acceptable ifit does not create drainage issues such asblGcking orreElirecting drainage
E:\projeclS\t991\97082-1364 position paper moratorium area 5-07.doc
4-24
PN 97082-1364-CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
May 15,2007
to areas oipotential increased subsur.face percolation and is limited to tills up to 3 feet in heightand
less than 20 cu.bic yards of earth movement.
The addition ofsl.lbsUi'face water within the landslide moratorium area cou1d have a detrimental
aft'ect on its stability.The risk therefore increases substantially If the project is served by on~site
sewage dispo$al ot has 00 access to stonn drain runoff collection.
Anynewprojec~development otsingle.family home that requires only limited gradlng (as defined
above)andcou1dcollect and dispose of storm water or sewer emuents from theptoject site to
outside the latldsUdearea would theoretically.have no iInpaet on th¢stability oithe landslide;
however,the baseline risk associated with any new projecj'would be the samea.s other properties
withinthelandsUde.As stated above,these new developments would serve to expose more people
to at l~the baseline level of risk associated with living in a landslide .area.
Based on the above,it is our professional opinion that new developmentnotbe allowed within any
ofthe moratorium area.
Question t2:From a geologic and geotechnical enjineering perspectt'vt.is it detrimental to the
landslide to continue to allow existing residents to add minorsfJuart{oo(age and improvements to
their existing htJmes,such as the 600 square feet maximum allowancethaf currently exists?
From a geologic and geotechnical perspective,the issues ofgrading~sew~edispo$aland$torm
water 11l11offeollection discussed above are stUl the main factotsunder consideration in addressing
thisql.l<::Sti0n.:rheaetmd weight ofastructllre is generally v~~l to the weight of the
entirelandsli'4e~s.In addition,itcou1d beatgued that somemin.o~>j..can,actually enhance
the ctraina.ge ofthe site.Therefore,from one perspective,amin.imaladditiPn to an existing residence
(te.6008qmtte feet or less)or limited grading (20 Cubic yards dtless)wQu1dnot add to the
instability oithe landslide moratoriwn areas,and may have the beneficial effect of itnproving
drainage and redllcing permeable area for runoff to enter into the landslide.It is also our
professional opinion that minor additions that involve only limitedgradiilg(less than 20 cubic yards)
and .do not increase the potential for infiltration of water into the subsPrface are acceptable from a
geologic and geotechnical perspective.The potential infiltration of wat$:may be prevented with
storm water disposal and sanitary sewer or demonstration that the project will not increase the
potential ror infiltration otwater into the subsurface.
Swimming pools,spas,and other water features could create the potential for adding water into the
subsurface,potentially decreasing the stability ofthe landslide area.Therefore,pr~jects that would
potentially destabilize the moratorium areas such as swimming pools,spas,and other water features
should not be allowed.
E:\projecIS\1997\97082·1364 position papermollltorium an:a 5-07.doc
@
4-25
-
CITY OF R..A:NCHO PALOS VERDES
May 15.:Z007
-
PN 97082-1364
The issue ofthe size Of an addition is generally a policy issue.Whether the allowed addition is 200
square {eetor 1,000 square feet will not make a substantial difference from a geologic perspective.It
should be understood that the larger the addition the more the issues ofgrading and runoff come into
play.In addition,at a certain point,additional square footage would serve to expose more people to
landslide risk..
Partially to cobforn1.to current code standards,we would recommend that the levels for additions
currently allowed by the moratorium ordinance be eStitblished at acumtkuve.m~umof 1,200
square feet for all additions including habitable and non-habitable space.The cumulative totals may
include firSt $'tory,seeottd sto!'Y and garage additions.The square footageofalladditions.including
the garageadditionJ,lJUly t>einterchanged provided the cUl1lulative total doesnofexceeda cumulative
total of 1,200 square feet.It is fUrther recommended that the geology and soils engineering report
requirem~ts set forth in thecutrentcode also continue.
Question ff:3:81w'tllrl such rules be the same in the blue area as they are tor the red area?·
C~tly the code d~rentiates a portion ofthe Klondike Canyon landSlide:as the "blue"area and
has treated itdiff'etentlyftomother areas ofthe moratorium.From a pJ;lrely g~logic perspective,
landslides in a state ofmovement are by definition at or below a factor ofsafety of1.0.This is below
the commonty accepted standardofa 15 factor of safety.Construcuonot development within a
landslide area has'varying rislsdepending on the area chosen and thelo~topographic conditiOnS.
Generally,landslides Ctul have areas that are more coherent with less ft$$l;11'esand cracks and other
areas whereoracksand fissures are more abundant.These more cohetentaJieas have less risk
associated with them than the more broken up areas.In addition,areas ofJ,andslidesthathave more
local topo.phioreliefare also generally at higher risk.Generally the entire:~ofthe PoltUguese
Bend landslid~has a muehhigher risk:associated with it than does the <J,evelQpOO areas of the
Abalone Coveortoondike Canyon landslide areas.This does not i.rn,plYthat there is no risk
associated with living on or developing within the Abalone Cove or Klondike Canyon landslides.
Both havesn,<)"wn movement and therefore,would be considered below the minimum standard of
praetice or code req'tlirelllents fot development.
Based on our review of prlorstudies.and displacement data over time,a case may be.made to
propose a direct relationship between movement of the Portuguese Bend 'Landslide and Klondike
Canyon Landslide area.It is our professional opinion that if the PottugueseBend Landslide
experiences a significant level ofmovement.either over time or in a catasttophicepisode,support for
the western flank ofthe Klondike Canyon landslide could be lost and the Klondike Canyon landslide
could be subject to potentially catastrophic movement.
For the above reasons,it is our professional opinion that both the "red"and "blue"areas should be
treated the same from a code standpoint.
E:\projects\1997\97()82·1364 positioll paper llIoratorium area S·07.doc -
4-26
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
May 15,2007
PN 97082-1364
We appreciate this opportunity to be ofcontinued service to the City ofRancho Palos Verdes.Please
call if you have any questions regarding the content ofthis letter.
Sincerely,
ZEISER KLING CONSULTANTS,INC.
JML:MGR:dg
E:\projects\1997\97082-1364 position paper moratorium area 5-07.doc
4-27