Loading...
20140506 Late Correspondenceo PART-OF-idEiVED FROM O.D y� a® UrlJ•,rI Jam, o PART-OF-idEiVED FROM O.D y� a® UrlJ•,rI s rte. 1 j*4j— &JAXI (e.AAA JEA AAA) :i A � r _, XXAl OAAJ i� +i RECEIVED FROM I AND MADE A PART OFT E RECORD T JH COUNCIL MEETING OF OFFICE OF THE CIT CLERK i CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK 6 i P' 4:7 2- IfAll A AI IN L a. AA I f 4- 0 4,z, KT --2 /�/lam\ % a�L 4:7 -2- FOO -3 a,4, AAA 4LALor, • ,usut r U\ . , A.. -4 ,; � i . � � -t. n .. n a � 3 .j;-4 s n k 47-- U Yl .:.,.� \§ m . � W,' A - <0101 0000 i �e .. f ; i V rr wv �uctitc,�i�ns�.. �+-�L Aj.'d'�i.�c ,ts4 ..'J& .i4—¢�r.11v �ls�c� ilL .).A .C -14A b is t, , # s l s jig a. S i+,rYla-Sjf^ x ` t 1 ' ,,��-.rr�-�,,.•��. _ '^�„r .Y- - x �. Z`�, ' i %$" �7rr-_.'.� ^'s! ! ':' �; ^�t� t .,� �'..- t{f•ta' � l ry �-5 F uZ z�`s r x- i, I f ' r - r f c sgj I a - �9,7'iNa?qraw~! j G'`• =, + .'';: F' ,i; it �Y�r Q% i ++- ��_ ✓e'�.+�■ ,r -. .� � F� �:'� � �'^ : r '� t ami' .r zo t y�.r. v'3>�� � r ���' 0 1 t -: !S- t s f �=r }.'•,��+� a+ i � ,R �,� 1.3 � � � � r _ P ilii`Tc:• ,K�rf.+.f.�-�:Ff �t io •' / (1 ,l;ar �� 'r r ` � �: ".'r.'� �' � '" y��.r'� Ir E��t �1-* .Fi},�,.3' '.�" ` "'"'� ;�■t�`=. '`�'�i l._�.r l�4 f£-_.. rr"� r' ," �~''�" "`'�► �,i-'"4 r — 'Al Int'- .jr��..fif N�,... O O., 4 � � �...` �/a► ��i`.= .F r} 'F Intq � t. �-.__'^^ ``+�j � ,� ,�S•s � 1.3j i ' i, � � �p 4* rY� • f Y �'-..:.y"`'. i, h` �£+wq-Fi,r""'.M�,.S'Z- ...-t,t" ZacR �s •a} �-7 �rj�, � -•z-1�=,.�, :,`sqa ALT �y #� �: f � � e ' w �� ., r a - j „ 1 © F'a i!'A'�.c.•''.A+, �, �, iii t r. ,� e #. ''""' ! � �` � � Vl ^ ; � �` :.• i . a - .� ! l+%-.. " ,� _ �n •� �f.'� ��'f' .f3 � f _'-. � ° �. i'�•., ..-` /A i` m $ - Vis. Qy SA At 4,}!� � t at��! +` { f rF" •.' ;AI KS C' „e'��,... x ' a.. CL CL - (W e . sly E G•* ' 'l,�e [ � � ,...�.I> . 2k '} } t r e..: fs � ge "'tt� �i,y) ` ��,�q !�'a. '�` $ `�•x5 ����a=,fr �� < �r `t _j '�, t.. "r7a7��?- � $S`' s..:,'i" j�p: ri -'ter Y,j•x,'+ s. 'r�'s3k• 1 �_ 't: xi�•2-+ci S 1•�J.;.. 1 S,vers �.! ytUP �iyfT;L ti'`• ' '� r ■ : eft r �i � :. t -.f 3 �� � .. ti i r .. ' �l i ->v -\ ? p _ _ �,y,9 �, __ii"k„�.: •-T '�.�� .- k, f ' � � � �.."r,�•'�3d' � �{e� ` `` ,a. •,,_ Mii 6 a'_.,_.s_�.--�.t714 ..:y+ �'"'.�-...rr _:x4 .�"'n'c -�il �'t - .�: Y •.�• j• a.t V "LAI, s ' ✓r Y E e• + 4s.. ,i ...r j.T.l S'{'{? ' ye`l•.5 • �'��-v � ::�- �j � t. a +�' v j \ 5 � aP a■ .. � tT .. a 4000T, -el-Ig 7 IIL I Ay . Aj 7? to L -01V A0Q -it Ai�- z..._: JS Al ."c Vr JF? 77A 14 w 0', r 7 N-1 0 �V7 CW J tv A-' E- P V, t 4 ttiT -fit GO t .41 -M TIA,iig all, lie *,�-N'7,f Z!;R,; 6e. sit, 5 6 PRE, V'J3] w k. 01 amt. -?, 4 1- e a Al r- n-- Vz. AV Qj 1 4z P ? V\ CITY OF N zZ - A JA RANCHO I- MOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: MAY 6, 2014 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material Emails from: Jim Knight; Cassie Jones; Subhash and Jennifer Mendonca; Tony Baker; Lewis A. Enstedt Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, May 5, 2014**. W:\AGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140506 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Mayor and Council members: Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com> Monday, May 05, 2014 8:04 PM CC Zone 2 additional comments RESOLUTION NO 2002-43.docx My letter for the Agenda item 1 in the May 6, 2014 staff report only addresses the FEIR. In reading the staff report, the staff has raised some additional issues/impacts related to the Ordinance Revision that the FEIR has not addressed. There is the statement on p1-9 #2 and #3 that the city could be exposed to a legal challenge from the owners of the 31 non -Monks parcels if these particular Ordinance revisions are not adopted. I suggest to you, with the evidence presented, that you run a greater legal risk if you were to go forth with this Ordinance Revision for the following reasons: 1) There is enough evidence presented to this City that shows the Ordinance is not supported with an adequate FEIR and thusly mitigations are not sufficient to support such an Ordinance Revision leaving the City open for other legal challenges. 2) The non -industry geological standard you are being asked to adopt allows for some damage to properties both inside and outside the project area leaving the City open to legal challenges for real damages. In my FEIR comments I pointed out that if a property owner in another location in RPV wanted to tear down a house and excavate a basement, that the standard you are being asked to accept would allow for some damage to a neighbor's home foundation. 3) There is a reasonable expectation that other similar RS -1 and RS -2 property owners would demand the same Monks geological standard be used. As a matter of fact, this could impact all zones and could lead to an indefensible changes to our zoning and General Plan. 4) RPV City Council Resolution 2002-43 (attached) is signed by Mayor John McTaggart and was not included in your staff report. The Ordinance Revision before you in Agenda item 1 is in direct conflict with this clearly stated City policy of using the industry geological standard of a factor of safety of 1.5 which is used by the City and all other municipalities (Sec. C, D of the 2002 resolution). This 2002 Resolution further rejects other standards such as the Monks nuisance standard which is being presented to you on Agenda item 1 (Sec. E). I fully understand that the 3 Appellate Judges rejected this policy and forced a non -industry geologic nuisance standard on the City but it was only for the 16 plaintiffs of the Monks case. That decision did not force the City to change their existing industry geological standard for the non -Monks litigants in Zone 2 nor the rest of the city. The community has presented to the City evidence that extends far beyond the arguments used by the three Appellate Judges to make their decision. Any legal challenges by other Zone 2 lot owners would have to start a legal challenge de novo and would have to address those additional obstacles to convince another court to rule in their favor. The fear of potential lawsuit by other Zone 2 lot owners should not over shadow the potential of possibly much larger legal issues of adopting a non -industry geological standard that allows for damage to structures. There are currently legal challenges being presented to other cities such as Oso, Washington and Jackson, Wyoming for their approval of development despite warnings by geologists. Thank you; Jim Knight Resident of Portuguese Bend RESOLUTION NO. 2002-43 Signed by Mayor McTaggart on June 12, 2002 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES SETTING FORTH CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING "ZONE 2" OF THE LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM AREA BASED UPON THE REPORT THAT WAS PREPARED BY COTTON, SHIRES &ASSOCIATES WHEREAS, in 2001, the City Council approved a professional services agreement with Cotton, Shires &Associates to review existing geologic data to address certain issues regarding potential development in the area of the Landslide Moratorium that has been informally designated as "Zone 2"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the direction of the City Council, Cotton, Shires & Associates prepared a draft report in September, 2001, which was made available to all interested persons and the public for review and comment; and WHEREAS, interested persons and members of the public submitted comments and questions on the draft report, which thereafter were reviewed by Cotton, Shires & Associates; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the direction of the City Council, Cotton, Shires & Associates prepared a report dated January 14, 2002; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2002, at a duly noticed public meeting, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes reviewed the report that was prepared by Cotton, Shires & Associates and discussed certain findings that should be made as a result of the report; and WHEREAS, the City Council has directed staff to prepare a resolution setting forth its findings; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council hereby accepts the following conclusions of the Cotton, Shires &Associates, January 14, 2002 Technical Review that: A. There is insufficient subsurface information to properly characterize either the depth to the base of landslide, the strength properties of the landslide materials, or the groundwater levels. Without these data, no accurate slope stability analysis can be undertaken, no reliable factor of safety can be calculated and no dependable landslide mitigation scheme can be designed. 0 B. One cannot quantitatively determine the factor of safety and, therefore, cannot judge the level of risk of development in the prehistoric landslide area, which includes Zone 2. C. The factor of safety of the landslide mass that underlies Zone 2 is above 1.00, but probably is less than the industry's standard safety threshold of 1.50 for residential development, which also is the standard that is used by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. D. The City Council finds that the accepted geotechnical standard for new residential construction, which is a Factor of Safety of 1.5 for slope stability that is applied throughout the City, also should be applied within the boundaries of the Landslide Moratorium Area. This is a common standard among geotechnical professionals and has been adopted by most, if not all, municipalities in Southern California. (Cotton Report page 5, 8-9, Cotton Jan. 30, 2002, letter page 1.) E. No recognized geological agency or standard-setting body has adopted as a standard for determining whether or not to allow residential development a standard or test that is based on an inquiry as to whether or not the development of the property would "further destabilize" an area, or such similar standard. Accordingly, Rancho Palos Verdes declines to adopt such a standard within its jurisdiction. (Cotton Jan. 30, 2002, letter page 1.) F. Geologically, the level of risk of allowing development of undeveloped residential lots in Zone 2 is presently unknown. The decision to allow new building upon undeveloped lots in that area, given the unknown level of risk, is a policy decision, which must be based on a willingness to accept the unknown risk. (Cotton Jan. 30, 2002 letter, page 1.) G. The guidelines suggested by Dr. Perry Ehlig in his Memorandum of May 26, 1993, appear to be based on Dr. Ehlig's subjective assessment, based on his experience, judgment and expertise. However, Cotton, Shires uncovered no geotechnical slope stability analyses of Zone 2 in Dr. Ehlig's files. (Cotton Jan 30, 2002 letter, page 2, Report page 2.) H. Although a number of mitigation measures have been employed, to date no quantitative geotechnical analysis to determine the effectiveness of these measures has been undertaken. (Cotton Report page 2.) I. It has been noted by various individuals that the apparent long period of there being no recorded land movement in Zone 2 suggests that the U-1 area is adequately stable to allow building on undeveloped properties in that Zone. Yet there is no clear evidence of the age of the landslide. Further, predicting the long-term stability of the landslide in advance of detailed surface and subsurface information is founded on ill-advised technical reasoning. (Cotton Report page 3.) 2. The conclusion noted in the Cotton, Shires January 2002 Report that the undeveloped ("vacant") lots could be developed "without further destabilizing the large regional landslide" is a conclusion that is not based on the application of the accepted standard that seeks a Factor of Safety of 1.5, but instead is based on the fact that it is feasible to construct new homes without significant redistribution of earth mass or contributing to groundwater rise. Hence, this conclusion is not based on an evaluation of the stability of the underlying geology. This response was the result of a request by the City Council that the report address the issue of whether pr not the development would "further destabilize" the area. (Cotton Jan. 30, 2002 letter page 1-2.) Because this conclusion is not based on a standard that is recognized by a geological agency or standard-setting body, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes declines to adopt that conclusion. 3. Based on the foregoing, the City Council is directing City Staff to continue to deny requests for development permits for new homes in the Zone 2 area of the Portuguese Bend landslide complex, because of the current lack of evidence that the Zone 2 area has a factor of safety of 1.5 or greater, until an applicant submits a complete Landslide Moratorium Exclusion application that is supported by adequate geologic data demonstrating a factor of safety of 1.5 or greater of the Zone 2 area to the satisfaction of the City Geologist; the City Council approves the Landslide Moratorium Exclusion application, and all other required permits to develop are issued by the City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of June 2002. /s/ John C. McTaggart Mayor ATTEST: /s/ Jo Purcell City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2002-43 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 12, 2002. City Clerk From: cassiej@aol.com Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 9:46 PM To: CC; Eduardo Schonborn Subject: Comments for meeting Attachments: Notes for 5-6-14 cc.doc I am attaching and providing my commentary for tonight's meeting in advance. I know how lengthy these meetings can be. i may elect to not speak, but would hope to if time permits. Thank you! Cassie Jones Rancho Palos Verdes cassiej@aol.com 5/6/2014 Good Evening Council, Mayor, I am sure you are up to your ears with numbers and studies and photos and video, factors of safety, GPS, dewatering, Altamira, etc. I know you have read everything- you've had several years to do so, so I will just point out a few big picture items .... Just some realistic and practical things, I think. First, consider the reason for the EIR: It is stated that the reason is to avoid litigation. Will it? I am not aware of any input from the undeveloped lot owners about this EIR yet years have passed and opportunities have been plentiful. Are they ok with it? Is it onerous? Do they understand what is being asked of them? There is only one public comment from one undeveloped lot owner: LeeAnn Twidwell. She is concerned about the roads and drainage. She may want to build on the lot some day, but her lot, along with several of the Monks' lots by the way, lies in a natural drainage pathway and the current plan for more homes upstream threatens it. The only other lot owner representative you have heard from is the PBCA and it is concerned! The PBCA also represents lot owners! Everyone has had opportunity to comment and virtually all you hear is concern. The City itself is a healthy member of the PBCA, owning quite a number of lots being damaged by ground movement partially from water infiltrating Altamira Canyon. It should be concerned. Second, the Staff Recommendation is for a Statement of Overriding Consideration for the one significant impact that you actually CAN mitigate: the traffic light. The other issues of dealing with the hydrology, the storm drains and infrastructure, the fire exit times, the underlying unstable geology, you know, the really hard stuff- all of that is somehow "mitigated" or ignored altogether in the EIR through methods that range from unproven to illogical. You have heard many of those ad nauseum. The one thing, the one true, concrete mitigation that YOU COULD ACTUALLY DO, is install traffic lights. Yet this is recommended against because, and you will be signing your name and your political reputation to this: it is recommended against because it isn't pretty. It's not esthetic, not semi -rural. What personal injury lawyer isn't going to say "ka-ching" the first time someone is picked off there because a required traffic light was not esthetic enough? Lastly the staff recommendation of continuing the hearing another month to respond to more input is beyond belief. Do you really think somehow in a month that documents verifying the engineering, excuse me, the OVER engineering as Mr. Weber believes, of the infrastructure will somehow be found? The consultants have had knowledge of the ACLAD response for 8 or 9 months now. Do they really need another month to word craft themselves out of meaningful answers? Really? Just pull the Band-Aid off tonight. If you haven't already made up your minds on this EIR, then I cannot imagine what another month is going to suddenly clarify- will Island View abruptly go away? Will all the water in Altamira Canyon somehow make it all the way to the sea? (Actually that would be bad for the tidal areas...) Really? How could you need another month to explain how hundreds of cars can exit in a nanosecond and how building uphill from unstable land is actually a. good thing? Why do you feel you need to answer the comments again? What strange paper trail are you creating? You should vote to Not Certify this EIR tonight and, as for No Project- certainly not THIS project. That is not to say you don't have a project at all. Through dealing with the interconnectedness of all the Zones, adequate sealing of the canyon, re -working the roads, installing proper storm drains, approving smaller houses with smaller hardscape footprints, more dewatering wells upslope and so on and so on, AND putting in a traffic light- you may have yourself a viable project. Thank you for all your hard work and attention to this matter. Cassie Jones Rancho Palos Verdes 0 From: Jennifer Mendonca <jenni674@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 10:08 AM To: Eduardo Schonborn Cc: CC; Subhash Mendonca Subject: Request to ratify and execute FEIR recommendations. Dear Mr Schonborn, We purchased a non -Monk lot at 86 Narcissa Dr on August 2013 since our family with three young children was looking to build our home in the beautiful community of Rancho Palos Verdes. We have been looking to own a home in Rancho Palos Verdes for more than two years so that we can be a part of this beautiful community where my children attend its fantastic schools. We had a geological assessment done on our lot before we purchased it, to ensure we could build our dream home on the lot and were extremely pleased when the result of that assessment confirmed that we could build on the lot. We are very excited that the FEIR recommends revising the City's Landslide Moratorium Ordinance to establish an exception category to allow the development of our lot to enable my family to build our dream home. We urge the City Council to pass this exception category so that our young children can firm their roots in the beautiful community of Portuguese Bend in Rancho Palos Verdes. Sincerely yours, Subhash & Jennifer Mendonca From: tony baker <tbake377@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 11:00 AM To: CC Subject: Zone 2 EIR Dear City Council Members ---I hope that you all have read the recently published book by Bob Douglas covering the geology and history of the Ancient Altamira Landslide Complex before making a decision on whether to certify the final Zone 2 EIR. ---Landslides have been in the news lately, but for residents of the Peninsula they are old news. I was 10 years old when my family home began moving with the Portuguese Bend Landslide and it's still going. Since then, we've witnessed Abalone Cove, Flying Triangle, San Ramon and White Point to name a few. ---The "factor of safety" for building construction is apparently not to be taken into account. How about threats to "life and limb? And the liability involved? ---A few years ago, I was hiking at the Ocean Trails Golf Course in an are that had been identified in the EIR as having the potential to slide and thus not suitable for buildings. Well, that day it did slide and I was evacuated by helicopter after a harrowing experience. Fortunately I was the only person there that day and capable of running my butt off. I was also there the previous day, which happened to be Memorial Day, and I walked the same trails with dozens of other visitors and families fishing from the rocks below the cliffs. Had the slide occurred 24 hours earlier we would have had a great tragedy. ---The geologists and hydrologists advising the City are making assurances that the added development, grading and storm run-off will not significantly affect the stability of the Altamira Landslide Complex. I remember a comment from Karl Vonder Linden, who wrote his doctoral thesis on the P.B. Landslide, that if you put 4 geologists in a room, they will come out with 5 opinions. Sincerely Tony Baker 16 Limetree Lane Portuguese Bend From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: To Whom it May Concern: Lewis Enstedt <lewisenstedt@hotmail.com> Tuesday, May 06, 201411:50 AM CC Zone 2 FEIR Zone 2 FEIR Response.pdf Attached, please find, for your consideration, my response to the FEIR being considered for approval. Please include this response (along with the two videos referenced in the response -to be hand delivered to city hall today) into the administrative record. Thank you, Lewis A. Enstedt o �, May 6, 2014 Honorable Mayor Duhovic, Mayor Pro Tern Knight, Councilpersons Brooks, Campbell and Misetich, In consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for Zone 2, Portuguese Bend, I propose the following question: Shouldn't a bedrock principle for a city in craft ' ing and implementing policy be the preservation of the public's well-being and level of safety and not just the avoidance of unknown litigation risk? If your answer to this most basic question is yes, then you have to admit that the current FEIR, with all it's deficiencies, deferred studies, rationalizations and lack of serious mitigations, flies in the face of this bedrock principal and should be voted against, without further delay. Others have, undoubtedly, better described the many flaws of the FEIR, but to summarize the problems of further development without thoughtful and thorough mitigation is to basically state that such development Will only exacerbate an already unstable condition.. Basically, it is known science, and not theory, that the stability lity of the entire area is directly related to and influenced by the level of groundwater. Without proper mitigation, further development will directly lead to a dramatic increase in these ground water levels and possible reactivation of landslides. All areas in Zone 2 eventuallys * drain -to Altimira Canyon and, by the City's own admission in previous. Landslide Works -hops, a vast majority of water entering the canyon recharges the groundwater via direct infiltration. through fissures in the bottom of the canyon in the areas of Zones 2 and 5. The Hydrology Section of the FEIR incorrectly assesses this impact because of the flawed assumption that significant runoff from undeveloped lots is an' existing condition and that further development shouldn't result in an increase over this. existing condition. 1, personally have video shot on Sunday, December 19, 2010; showing little tono runoff occurring from the vacant up sloping lots on upper Cinnamon Lane, during rains on day 3 of a -major -rain event that occurred in December of that year (see video labeled "Minimal Runoff' shot from' 40 Cinnamon to the vacant lots across the, street): Specific -ally, on December 19, 2010, Los Angeles recorded 2.80" of f ain. For the period of 12-16-2010 through 12-19-2010, Los Angeles International Airport recorded 5.09" of rain and also reported, along with Long Beach, the wettest December on record. Again,, you do not see large amounts of water running off of these vacant, saturated lots, even after all of this heavy rain! Compared to the aforementioned video it seems difficult to imagine that a significant increase in runoff will not occur With further development. I will also submit video taken during another. rain event that demonstrates the runoff occurring from a single home at 75 Narcissa Dr (labeled "Parks' Drainaae". specifically from .0:43 to the end), This was the last home constructed, sometime between 2005 and the present, before construction began for the Monks' plaintiffs. What is readily apparent from this video is the vast amount of, runoff generated from one property that is being directed to the streets and, ultimately, Altimira Canyon. Notice the volume of water emanating from the green, large diameter outlet pipe for the property. What size holding -tank would be required to hold this volume, along with that sheet flowing from, the driveway? Even with a holding tank, this volume of water will eventually make it to the streets, and Altimira canyon. Both videos m4ll.be submitted to. City Hall today, May 6, 2014, for inclusion into the administrative record. These videos, taken together, directly refute the assumptions made in the Hydrology section of the FOR and render its conclusions regarding runoff invalid. Another flawed. assumption in this section is the statement that, since the roads were designed for the build out of the entire community, they are adequate to handle its drainage. As clearly demonstrated in the report submitted by Dr. Robert Douglass and ACLAD, the adequacy of the current road configuration for drainage is clearly lacking. Interestingly, the consultant formulating the*FEIR has yet to respond to the questions raised by this report. Also, where are the engineering studies for the roads in question? It is my understanding that the administrative record contains no such studies, as they cannot be found! Yet another reason to invalidate this section's conclusions. With regards to the Geology section, what is troubling is that the consultant removes the requirement of showing a 1.5 factor of safety for* development, replacing this with the "nuisance" standard as stated by the Appellate Court in the Monks Decision. The Court never mandated that this standard be used beyond the Monks plaintiffs. When the City enacted Resolution 2002-4.3 on May 20, 2002,. it deprived all 47 Zone 2 lot owners of "economic use". However, only the Monks plaintiffs filed suit within the 90 -day limitations period. The other 31 Zone 2 lot owners failed to file suit within this timeframe and, therefore, do not have a claim for a regulatory taking and the Monks decision holds no relevance for them. Also, is it truly just a "nuisance." if someone's home is damaged to a point where it is unsaleable if not uninhabitable? I think not. And if this standard is used in the FEIR, why shouldn't it be used On a citywide basis and even a statewide basis for that matter? Unfortunately, recent and tragic landslide events in the states of Washington and Montana vividly illuminate the folly of ignoring. known facts and science in the process of justifying development in areas with well known inherent risks. I sincerely hope you do not make the same mistake. Sincerely, Lewis A. Enstedt .3 CITY OF rbc s k��Fnu�l ..RANCHO PALO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: MAY 5, 2014 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached -are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, May 6, 2014 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Materials H Ordinance No. 556 - The title of the document has been revised and now includes the words "Open Ordinance", as well as the words that make up the acronym "OPEN" Emails from: Kathy Snell; Stuart Miller (2); Don Christy Respectfully submitted, at Carla Morreale W:WGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140506 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc ,A* N Q I ki ra 01 RI :8 ZI AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADDING NEW CHAPTER 2.48 TO TITLE 2 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING OPEN PUBLIC EMPLOYEE NEGOTIATIONS AND THE PROCEDURE FOR ADOPTING OR AMENDING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY AND AN EXCLUSIVELY RECOGNIZED EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION (THE RPV "OPEN ORDINANCE") THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HEREBY ORDAINS -AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby adds Chapter 2.48 to Title 2 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to read as follows: "Chapter 2.48 LABOR NEGOTIATIONS 2.48.010: Applicability 2.48.020: Definitions 2.48.030: City Representative 2.48.040: Economic Analysis 2.48.060: Adoption of a Memorandum of Understanding 2.48.010: Applicability: This Chapter shall apply when the City Council considers a written meet and confer proposal to be presented to, or received from, any recognized employee organization or the adoption or amendment of a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") 2.48.020: Definitions: -I- H. For the purposes of this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall be defined as follows: A. MEET AND CONFER PROPOSAL shall mean a written proposal that is presented to or received from any recognized employee organization. B. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING shall mean a formal signed agreement between the City and an exclusively recognized employee organization. 2.48.030: City Representative: A.. Unless reported as provided below, the lead negotiator on behalf of the City during the negotiation of a memorandum of understanding or amendment to a memorandum of understanding shall not be an employee of the City and shall have demonstrated expertise in negotiating labor and employment agreements on behalf of municipalities. The City Council shall designate one or more City management employees or other individuals to be present during negotiations to assist the lead negotiator as the City Council and lead negotiator deem appropriate. B. If the lead negotiator of the City does not meet the requirements of this Section, then this fact must be reported in writing at the meetings of the City Council at which the memorandum of understanding or amendment is considered. 2.48.040: Economic Analysis: A. Unless the City Council directs that a fiscal impact analysis shall not be obtained, which shall be reported as provided in paragraph C below, the City's Department of Finance shall prepare a fiscal impact analysis of a meet and confer proposal, a proposed memorandum of understanding or an amendment to a -2- memorandum of understanding. The fiscal impact analysis shall be reviewed by an independent certified public accountant with governmental expertise who is not a City employee. If a statement of actuarial impact is required by California Government Code Section 7507 or its successor for any change to retirement or other post employment benefits, then the fiscal analysis required by this Section need not address the benefit changes analyzed in the statement of actuarial impact. B. If a meet and confer proposal is rejected by the party to which it is presented and is no. longer being considered, then the rejected meet and confer proposal and the fiscal impact analysis that was prepared for that meet and confer proposal will be posted on the City's website. C. If a fiscal impact analysis is not obtained as required by this Section, then this fact must be reported in writing at the meetings of the City Council at which the meet and confer proposal or memorandum of understanding or amendment is considered. 2.48.050: Adoption of a Memorandum of Understanding: A. The City Council may adopt or amend a memorandum of understanding only after the memorandum or amendment has been placed on an agenda at a minimum of two (2) City Council meetings that are held at least two (2) weeks apart. B. A proposed memorandum of understanding or amendment to a memorandum of understanding, as well as any fiscal impacts analysis prepared pursuant to Section 2.48.040 of this Chapter, shall be posted on the City's official website at least seventy-two (72) hours before the first City Council meeting at which the proposed memorandum of understanding or amendment is considered. -3- C. The adoption or amendment of a proposed memorandum of understanding shall not be placed on the City Council's consent calendar. Section 2. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or clauses or applications of this ordinance which can be implemented without the invalid provisions, clause, or application; and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. Section 3. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk MAYOR From: ksne110001@aol.com Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 2:28 PM To: Jerry Duhovic; Jim Knight; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Anthony Misetich Cc: Eduardo Schonborn; CC; CityClerk; CityManager; Carolynn Petru; Planning; Joel Rojas Subject: Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions Code Amendment Section 15.20.040 (May 6, 2014) In 1984, the then Mayor Jackie Bacharach and City Council took away the right to split my four (4) acre parcel into zoned one (1) acre lots. At that time, she stated that it would be "temporary.... just until the Abalone Cove slide is slowed down." Well, the slide slowed down a long time ago, so it is time to allow the property owners in Zone 2 to split their parcels to "benefit" after paying thousands of dollars in yearly "benefit assessments" to ACLAD since 1981. To save the residents of the City from suffering another Monks type lawsuit, the City needs to give back the ability to have lot splits in Zone 2. The California State Court of Appeal's decision in the Case of Monks v. Rancho Palos Verdes found that the City's prohibition against the development of lots in Zone 2 was a taking and an impermissible impediment to the development of the plaintiffs' lots. It appears that entering into another lawsuit and gaining a ruling from the Court to allow lot splits will take far less time than waiting for the City Council to approve lot splits and go through an unnecessary EIR process for a developed community with already established zoning dating back to the early 1900's. In 1973, 1 entered into an agreement to purchase four (4) acres on Vanderlip Driveway as a place to live and invest in. Over the years I have regarded the property as my retirement fund. I need to split the property so I can benefit from the land and retire. In 1989, John Vanderlip was allowed to split his property due to hardship. He applied for the lot split years after his right to split his property was taken away, and it was granted. It is time to restore the right to have lot splits in Zone 2. The property on Vanderlip Driveway is far more stable than the other properties in Zone 2, reference GPS A1358. The sewer lines, capacity, and laterals were installed on the basis of future development in Zone 2. Having to pay yearly ACLAD assessments on acreage that cannot be split and developed is a true hardship and is not a benefit. This EIR shows that the impact of lot splits will be minimal. In fact, ACLAD will be further funded from the assessments on the new square footage allowing for very valuable slide abatement work that has, in the past, been cost prohibitive. Please include an Exception to Section 15.20.040 allowing lot splits within Zone 2. Respectfully, Kathy Snell 8 Vanderlip Driveway Rancho Palos Verdes C2) From: smiller@stuartmillerlaw.com Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 4:38 PM To: CC; eduardo@rpv.com Cc: Scott Wellman; robert.cumby@cox.net; taborconstl@aol.com; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: Staff Report proposal for overriding consideration based on Monks litigation Attachments: 20140502163630.pdf Dear Mayor Duhovic, Members of the City Council, and Mr. Schonborn: represent the Portuguese Bend Community Association in its opposition to the Zone 2 Final Environmental Impact Report. I have just read the Staff Report and am very concerned about Staff's recommendation that the possibility of a lawsuit by the non -Monks lot owners is an "overriding consideration" justifying approval of the FEIR despite environmental impacts from the project. I was lead counsel for the Monks plaintiffs and I explain in the attached letter why Staff's fears are unfounded. Very truly yours, Stuart Miller o i. 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 Admitted in CA and NY May 2, 2014 Mayor Jerry Duhovic and Members of the City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re; Staff Report regarding Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions Response to Staff s comments regarding the Monks litigation Dear Mayor Duhovic and Members of the City Council: I represent the Portuguese Bend Community Association in its opposition to the Zone 2 Final Environmental Impact Report. I have already submitted the Association's comments to you and to City Staff. I have just received the staff report for the meeting of May 6. On page 1-9, the staff report argues that the possibility of a legal challenge from the non -Monks lot owners may constitute an overriding consideration justifying allowing development of those lots regardless of potential environmental impacts. I was lead counsel for the Monks plaintiffs and am writing to explain to you why Staff's assessment of the legal situation is incorrect. First, Staff's discussion presents just a generalized lay fear and contains no legal analysis. Second, the situation of the Monks plaintiffs in 2002 and the situation of the non -Monks lot owners today are not analogous at all. As I explained briefly in my letter to you dated April 28, the Monks plaintiffs were able to claim a regulatory taking of property because they made a timely challenge to an enactment that made development of their lots impossible. In particular, the City Council adopted Resolution 2002-43 on May 20, 2002, which precluded all development of vacant lots in Zone 2. (Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 263, 269.) Anyone aggrieved by that resolution had 90 days in which to sue. (Id. at 283-84.) The 31 Mayor Duhovic & Members of City Council Re: Staff Report May 2, 2014 page 2 non -Monks lot owners did not sue within that time period, so they have no claim of a regulatory taking unless the City now grants, and then revokes, the right to build. A rejection of the Final Environmental Impact Report will not have that effect. Third, treating the Monks- and non -Monks lot owners equally will involve much more than allowing development. One of the claims in the Monks case was for a temporary taking, which is a component of all regulatory taking cases. A claim of a temporary taking requires payment of damages to compensate the owner for lost use of the property while the excessive regulation was in effect. (Id. at 270 and 293.) During the Monks trial, the City and the plaintiffs settled the plaintiffs' claim for temporary taking damages for $4,250,000, or more than a quarter of a million dollars per lot. Equal treatment of the non -Monks lot owners would cost the City about eight million dollars. Fourth, John Monks, the lead plaintiff in the Monks litigation, tried valiantly to enlist all 47 lot owners in the litigation, but only 16 were willing to organize and sue. The reality is that if the other 31 would not coalesce when their case was strong, it will not be in their nature to do so when their case is weak. I urge the City Council not to accept City Staff's lay and unexplained fear that the non - Monks lot owners can bring a meritorious action against the City. Very truly yours, r Stuart Miller From: Eduardo Schonborn Sent: Monday, May 05,2014 12:16 PM To: Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: FW: Chart for Tuesday meeting Attachments: PBCACHART.pdf Stuart, Your chart was received. Per your request, I will put this on a slide so that it can be displayed during your comments tomorrow evening. -eduardo Eduardo Schonborn, aicp Senior Planner City of 1�ncFio (Paros Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.r)alosverdes.com/rov/r)lanninR/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f eduardos@rpv.com From: smiller@stuartmillerlaw.com [mailto:smiller@stuartmillerlaw.com] Sent: Monday, May 05, 201412:14 PM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: Chart for Tuesday meeting Dear Eduardo: The chart I plan to display at the meeting tomorrow is attached. Thank you for taking care of this. Regards, Stuart Miller IRN 1. M c e v F" o �U " o � G O O l�O O O O O O O O z zH� z z z z z z z z U C-) W 0 0 W .-� � o� � U• •• U � U v U U W •� � 0 � U a � .i v � � � a 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 W �O O co O T T T a Q A � !C! 3 It M M © 0 0 W CO C11 M M M M M d' V1 cd a u u a ca a a a a a T 35 T W v CIS C4 0.0Ln an A Cd 14 From: Don Christy <doncmusic@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 4:18 PM To: Eduardo Schonborn; CityClerk; CityManager; Carolynn Petru; Planning; Joel Rojas Subject: allowing lot splits in zone 2 In 1989 my step -father John Vanderlip sold 75% of our 5 acre lot to Ted Chung.The remaining 25 % was intended to be kept and owned by the family,The top portion of the property has historical landmarks dating back to when Frank Vanderlip purchased Palos verdes in 1913.The landmarks include the 2 cages that the first peacocks were brought over in,a duck pond for birds to bathe in,an irrigation system to transfer water to the troughs for 500 birds in Frank Vanderlips collection and finally the last of the remaining pillars that were to be used for Frank Vanderlips huge mansion that would have been located at the west end of Narcissa Dr. This portion of the the 5 acres needs to be split so it can kept in the family as John Vanderlip would want it to be.This is the last of the last of the original Vanderlip property owned by our side of the family.It needs to be maintained and preserved for the future.As an author of 2 Palos Verdes history books this piece of property represents an oppurtunity to keep an important and vital part of Palos Verdes tha t dates back to I 913.PLEASE ALLOW LOT SPLITS IN ZONE 2 so I can keep this property as the Vanderlip family would want me to. Sincerely Don Christy / i