20180116 Late CorrespondenceCITY COUNCIL AGENDA, 2018-01-16
Regular Business, Public Hearing 2
Late correspondence.
Comments upon the Draft Feasibility Study Update, Portuguese Bend Landslide complex
(December 22, 2017 draft.)
The Landflow Subcommittee of the Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee (IMAC)
performed a preliminary review of the Feasibility Study. These comments are offered
because the City Council's public hearing is occurring before the full IMAC has had an
opportunity to evaluate the Draft Feasibility Study. Therefore, the following comments are
only those of the subcommittee, not of the full IMAC.
There are two types of issues:
A. Suggestions for minor revisions of or additions to the Feasibility Study, and
B. Suggested issues for public evaluation that are prompted by the Feasibility Study.
A. SUGGESTED REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY:
1. Feasibility Study, Figure 14 depicts proposed horizontal drains in plan view. It would be
helpful if elevation views of horizontal drain placement were provided, similarly to
Geotechnical Figures 3 and 9, Section H-H' and Section 1-1'. The elevation views would
show what subsurface water levels the horizontal drains feasibly could and could not
passively drain. Elevation views also could show what subsurface water levels would require
active water extraction, such as pumped wells. Note that on Geotechnical Figure 3 a "O"
(zero) elevation contour occurs along Section 1-1' between Sections G-G' and H-H'. This
zero-elevation contour is inland, well north of Palos Verdes Drive South . The zero contour
appears to indicate that a portion of the approximate basal rupture surface of the landslide is
at the same elevation as the ocean surface. This means that there is no gravity gradient
between the zero-elevation-contour area and the ocean. If this is approximately correct, then
the horizontal drains cannot collect subsurface water from the zero-elevation basal rupture
surface and deliver that water to the ocean. (If the zero contour is not the same elevation as
the ocean surface, then a clarification of the zero contour elevation would be helpful, and a
conversion of all drawings to the same contour-reference point would be helpful.)
2. Could there be added to the draft Study an analysis of the feasibility of successful
drainage of surface storm waters to be collected north of Palos Verdes Drive South and
delivered past the road bed to the ocean?
B. ISSUES PROMPTED BY THE DRAFT FEASIBILITY FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION.
3. Should the Draft Feasibility Study be supplemented to evaluate whether there is
significant potential for rapid, catastrophic failure of land supporting the road, sewage lines
and water mains? (For example, is there a significant risk of a five-to ten-foot drop in the
supporting land in a few hours or days?)
3.1 If there is significant risk of rapid, catastrophic land failure, then what disaster
planning and preparation should be done? When? At what cost?
3.2 If there is significant risk of catastrophic failure, will feasible measures identified in
the Draft Feasibility Study adequately mitigate such risk?
3.3 Should there be an evaluation of the feasibility of re-routing critical infrastructure
away from faster-moving portions of the landslide?
4. Is it feasible to stage proposed mitigation measures over years? Do all parts of the
proposed work have to take place concurrently, or could they be staged geographically or by
function to spread funding over many years?
5. Are there well focused subsets of the proposed project that the City can afford on its
internal CIP budget?
Would parts of the proposed work deliver cost-effective benefits before the whole project
achieves outside funding? Are benefits, such as a financially meaningful slowing of damage
to the road, achievable with any project subset(s)?
For examples of project subsets:
A. Successful drainage of surface storm waters from north of PVDS past the road bed
to the ocean.
B. Sealing fissures that convey surface water into the slide (see feasibility study,
section 4.4.4, pg. 54 and following).
C. Horizontal drainage from the subsoil to the ocean (See feasibility Figure 14 for the
concept).
Kelvin Vanderlip and Lowell Wedemeyer,
Landslide subcommittee of the IMAC
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JANUARY 16, 2018
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No.
H
1
2
Description of Material
Email from April Sandell
Emails from: Cassie Jones; Steven Nolls; Letter from Sharon
Loveys
Emails from: Jim Knight; Marianne and William Hunter; Barry
Holchin; Pamela Emch; Emile Fiesler; Tom Long
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, January 15, 2018**.
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180116 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
From: Kit Fox
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, January 16, 2018 7:48 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Jan 16 cc meeting agenda item H
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 7:40 AM
. To: April Sandell <hvybags@cox.net>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Vitalichforrpv@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Jan 16 cc meeting agenda item H
Dear April:
Thank you for your email. It will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence regarding Item H.
KHFox,AICP
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544~5226
kitf@rpvca . .gov
From: April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 7:17 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Vitalichforrpv@gmail.com
Subject: Jan 16 cc meeting agenda item H
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
All too often tax payers wake up to unfortunate
after the fact consequences of existing law. The
fact is, drug rehab housing in residential
neighborhoods diminishes property values. Over
concentration of rehab homes pretty much
guarantees a loss to existing property owners. Sad
times for CA property owners.
1 H.
I appreciate your efforts to rein in the number of
rehab facilities in RPV.
Sincerely,
April Sandell
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late correspondence
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, January 16, 2018 7:50 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Item 1 Council Agenda 1/16/18
City Council Item 1 January 16, 2018 .... docx
From: cassiej@aol.com [mailto:cassiej@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 8:33 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Item 1 Council Agenda 1/16/18
Dear Council,
Please find attached commentary on the Agenda item 1 for tomorrow night's meeting. As you know, it is a lot of information to
absorb. Even so, I do apologize for the lateness of these comments.
Thank you so much for all you do.
Cassie Jones
President PVPLC Board of Directors
cassiej@aoLcom
1 /.
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Draft Feasibility Study, Agenda Item 2, Council Meeting January 16, 2017
Dear Honorable Mayor Brooks, Honorable Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Honorable Council Members
Alegria, Cruikshank and Dyda:
Thank you for placing on the public agenda under Regular Business this important topic and providing
the relevant documents such that the public can fully begin to understand and appreciate the scope and
nature of this undertaking along with some of its limitations. We also appreciate your goals of seeking a
solution that will be well received by the public and that will protect the integrity of the nature preserve.
As you know, the PVPLC is the named habitat manager for the Preserve, as well as holder of rights under
the Conservation Easement protecting the Preserve, and must be attentive to and focused on our
duties, requirements and responsibilities as such.
A few notes and comments derived from the Feasibility Study and the Staff Report include:
1) Approximately 28 percent of the PBLC and Klondike watersheds lies within the city of Rolling Hills.
A good portion of the proposed work in Paintbrush Canyon is in Rolling Hills. It is unclear if the
calculation of take excludes this area and if the cost of the project includes the additional permitting
required for this area, as work outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is not covered by the NCCP.
2) The NCCP does provide some governing principles with respect to projects in the Preserve:
• NCCP Section 5.5.19: "For Covered Projects/ Activities within the Preserve, the impact area ...
shall be located on the least sensitive portions of the site as determined by existing site-specific
biological and supporting information, and guided by the following [list of characterizations of the
site, in order of increasing sensitivity]."
• NCCP Section 7 .1: "The overall objective of the NCCP/HCP is to ensure that the biological values
of natural resources, where land is preserved as part of the NCCP/HCP through acquisition,
regulation, mitigation or other means, are maintained over time."
• Also in NCCP Section 7.1: "Land located in the Preserve will be managed and maintained in
accordance with specific biological objectives as follows: 1. Maintain or increase populations of
Covered Species to ensure the long-term viability and sustainability of native ecosystem function
and natural processes throughout the Preserve .... 2. Maintain or increase the acreage of habitat
for Covered Species within the Preserve ..... "
The NCCP does not anticipate that habitat could be "partially integrated" into the design of the
upper and lower canyon liners system. Creating islands of habitat is counterproductive to the work
of habitat restoration. Also, it is unclear here, but it is expected that, as the projects proceed, it will
be important to use current and updated biologic surveys for planning and monitoring purposes.
Please understand that simply because the NCCP allows for a certain amount of "take", that does not
mean one needs or even should use all of it.
3) Data Gaps
To provide a forum for stakeholder involvement, the City Council convened a Committee of
concerned residents to chart a path towards achieving stabilization of the PB Landslide. The
Committee identified one of its top priorities as "a complete characterization of the hydrology of the
area." Yet the study lists this as a significant data gap. Concern for the Nature Preserve and desire
for hydrology studies were the two most consistently identified concerns over the 4 study sessions.
"There are currently no known stream gage data based on monitoring of either dry weather or
storm water flow in the canyons that convey water into the PBLC and the Klondike Canyon
Landslide. These canyons have a bottom generally 10 to 20 feet wide and fall 15 to 20 feet in a 100-
foot run. A hydro logic study for this area is not within the scope of this study." This is an important
bit of data. The four Study Sessions conducted by the City consistently highlighted the public's desire
for understanding the hydrology of the area.
"In addition, the following pre-design input is needed, at a minimum, to develop a detailed scope of
work and engineering cost estimate for construction bidding:
•Hydrologic analysis and floodplain mapping
•Geologic, hydrogeologic, and stratigraphic characterization
Hydrologic analysis, floodplain mapping, and watershed modeling are needed to appropriately
characterize and specify the design flood for canyon lining and channel sizing engineering. These data
include stream flow measurements, flood frequency, rainfall data analysis, and related tasks. Geologic,
hydrogeologic, and stratigraphic data are needed to understand subsurface conditions before drain and
well drilling commences. Historical data are also needed, if available, including extraction well
construction data, extraction well production records, boring logs, a master soil boring and well location
map, groundwater elevation data (historical and current), and groundwater quality sampling data." It
will be easier for all to comment on these projects once the appropriate studies are completed.
4) With respect to septic tanks and irrigation runoff:
Based on the estimates for total project area recharge presented by Leighton and Associates (1998),
septic tanks contribute about 30 percent of the total groundwater recharge in dry years, and about 7.2
percent of the total groundwater recharge in the 10 wettest years.
"Septic tanks contribute a significant amount of groundwater recharge in relatively dry water years. A
centralized sewer system that eliminates septic tanks in the PBLC area would significantly reduce future
dry weather groundwater recharge. A centralized sewer system is needed in portions of both the City of
(Rancho) Palos Verdes and the City of Rolling Hills within the Portuguese Bend watershed (Figure 7). The
properties within the PBLC area between Peppertree Drive and PVDS currently use septic tanks. A
centralized sewer system would be beneficial in this neighborhood that is directly adjacent to the
northwest portion of the project area. Recharged groundwater in this neighborhood flows
downgradient directly into the project area. The properties northeast of the PBLC area south of Crest
Road currently use septic tanks. A centralized sewer system would be beneficial in this neighborhood
that is directly upgradient of the PBLC. Recharged groundwater in this neighborhood eventually flows
downgradient into the project area."
"All groundwater inflow into the PBLC results from recharge occurring upslope. Leighton and Associates
{1998) estimated that up to 77 acre-feet per year could be entering their project area from upslope
irrigation recharge. Extrapolated to the PBLC, and similar to septic tanks, irrigation return flow
represents a significant source of groundwater recharge to the PBLC. This component of recharge should
be investigated further in a water balance study developed to support the design of a land stabilization
solution." If this amount of water is similar to septic discharge, the two together could account for
upwards of 60 percent of the groundwater recharge in dry years and 14-15 percent in the wettest of
years, yet control of irrigation discharge is nowhere addressed. However, removing all sources of water
entering the Preserve could decimate habitat that is dependent upon it. This is pointed out because it
wifl be a point of controversy. The Preserve via the NCCP exists to provide the habitat for many species
and to serve as a bank of acreage to allow the City to function with planned and necessary development
in a more streamlined manner. The two coexist.
The study concludes that this option would likely be acceptable to the state due to the elimination of
ongoing liquid infiltration that contributes to regional land movement. While the community will
understand and support cessation of land movement, conversion costs from OWTS to city sewer will
likely be an issue. Costs were described as relatively high, yet THIS IS ONE OF THE LOWEST COST ITEMS
ON THE LIST. The cost of this item is estimated at $7M over 30 years. It is understood that cities and
residents might have to pay more of it directly, but the overall benefit to the environment would be a
positive one since intrusion of water through septic tanks, and diversion of water from increasing
impermeable surfaces outside of the PBLC into the PBLC, are the most man-made, least natural of the
water sources and contribute to an overload of the natural system.
5) Measuring and Monitoring:
Limited documented information is available on the number, construction details, and spatial
distribution of the water wells in the PBLC. Information provided by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
indicates that up to 20 water wells have been constructed and installed within the PBLC. Except for four
recent wells installed in 2016, no information could be located which documents the well construction
details, last surveyed location, purpose of well {monitoring or dewatering), date of installation, well
temporal monitoring data, or the current status of the well. That limitation represents a significant data
gap that should be aggressively addressed moving forward". This is somewhat disheartening to learn as
accurate and complete records must be maintained. Apparently, the original installation of pipes slowed
the landslide to 1 foot per year but failure to maintain the simple piping has ultimately led us to where
we are today. It could be concluded that had the prior dewatering efforts been maintained, or if new
wells were installed and maintained, the other more aggressive approaches proposed in the Study would
be unnecessary.
From the Study document we learn: "A well inspection survey should be conducted, including well
soundings and video survey where necessary, in order to construct one consolidated, comprehensive
database of site water well information and to provide the basis to initiate a monitoring program
moving forward. An assessment should be prepared of the adequacy of the well network for spatial and
temporal monitoring of groundwater within th2 PBLC. Based on that assessment, the monitoring well
network should be augmented and a monitoring program initiated and maintained to provide data that
will guide and evaluate the performance of the selected program to stabilize the PBLC. Regular, periodic
well inspection surveys are also recommended to evaluate the impact of land movement on the
monitoring network and the need for monitoring network maintenance."
"Changes in groundwater elevation with time and in relation to rainfall events vary depending upon the
well (Leighton and Associates, 2000). This suggests that multiple processes are involved in the delivery
and removal of groundwater from the site and highlights the need to institute and formalize a
monitoring program with the ability to record short and long term cyclic events. Such a formalized
monitoring program and the resulting database would facilitate the collection, storage, and data
interpretation critical to developing a detailed comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms which
control the stability of the PBLC." Measuring and monitoring programs will be critical. Once this
information in known, then we may be able to ascertain what is deemed significant control or slowing of
the landslide. Currently, this determination is only conceptual or subjective, it appears. It is unclear if
these studies and tools are included in the cost projections.
6) Seal Surface Fractures
"This technology consists of in-filling existing surface fractures on an annual basis primarily in the vicinity
of the project area (Red Zone) and in the PBLC head scarp area to reduce stormwater infiltration to
groundwater. Other areas of the PBLC such as south of PVDS or within the interior of the slide
area itself could also be included if appropriate. Relatively large fractures would be infilled before
the rainy winter season each year using a long-reach concrete pumping truck, conventional grout
pumping rig, or other method. Surface fractures would be identified in advance each fall through an on-
site visual inspection survey, recent aerial photograph review, or potentially, with photographic data
collected with an aerial drone, fly-over." This method bears consideration and more study for the
potential ramifications of visual blight and of depriving habitat of the water it has evolved to rely upon.
Also, the expansive soils will continue to expand and contract, just against these concrete fillings. Will
they act as a wedge against land adjacent or will they be pushed up? Or crack over time, much as a
home foundation might? Certainly, more study is needed as it also has potential to help slow the
landslide and costs are nowhere near the costs of other projects at $1M over a 10-year period.
7) Liner and Channel System analysis: The study concludes that this option would likely be acceptable to the
state and to the community because it partially integrates habitat and stream restoration into a design for
storm water capture and control. It is our feeling that the community will likely have objections to the liner
system given its cost is twice as great as the sewer project and will have the greatest effect on the habitat. The
cost of this option is estimated at 16.BM over 30 years. Additionally, the liner system does not comply with the
NCCP's requirement that projects be focused in the less environmentally sensitive areas of the Preserve-in
fact, the liner systems are focused in the MOST sensitive areas. Our coastal sage scrub habitat has evolved in
response to and dependent upon sporadic rains, some dry seasons and some wet seasons. Removing this
natural amount of water from the Preserve will impact this habitat. There may be ways to slow the landslide
without first removing most of the rainwater from the land. We encourage that approach first.
8) There is a section of the study that describes the sequence of the remedy components. They have
been organized to correspond with an iterative construction cycle. That is, "sealing surface fractures
is a relatively straight-forward and cost-effective remedy that could be readily implemented before
other options are pursued or while other options are in design, permitting, or construction. Second,
directional drains are a conventional and cost-effective solution that could be installed while the
more complex stormwater control liner and channel system would be in design, permitting, or
construction. Finally, once key fractures are sealed, directional subsurface drains are in place, and
stormwater control is in place, the remedy program may be supplemented with an expansion of the
existing groundwater extraction well network. Wells would be installed last in the sequence so that
potential well damage from ongoing land movement would be minimized as the earlier components
incrementally take effect". This sequence of remedy components does not include septic or
irrigation remediation at all.
Thank you for you detailed attention to this matter. Slowing down the landslide and creating high value
habitat would be a remarkable feat.
Cassie Jones
President, PVPLC Board of Directors
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, January 16, 2018 9:45 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Site Plans Green Hills Feb 6th City Council Meeting
From: Steven Nalls [mailto:nolls.steven@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 9:39 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Site Plans Green Hills Feb 6th City Council Meeting
I am a property owner at 1946 AvenidaFeliciano, RPV, 90275. Regarding the February 6th meeting and the
"conditional use permit" for Green Hills Mortuary, I am strongly against any new building or expansion.
Steven Nolls
Sierra Mortgage
310-541-2765 Office
310-686-0263 Cell
866-449-8395 Fax
BRE-00166343
NLMS-320413
1 I
APPEAL DATED NOVEMBER 28, 2017 REQUEST FOR GRADING PERMIT
CASE NO. ZON2017-00324
While taking my walk one morning I noticed that Mr.Resich and Company finally repaired
the chain link fence on the Western side of the cemetery abutting Rolling Hills Covenant
Church. It is the fence, I have pointed out to you many times at City meetings, I have squeezed
through that open fence for years and have shared it with many throughout the years. I have
enclosed two photos, for your convenience, one is before they closed the chain link fence and
the other is after they repaired the fence and, appeared to make it a solid chain link fence.
(Photos# 1 & 2) While walking around the reservoir for 29 years I have seen the messy and
shotty barbed wire in the back along the trail, that is shared with METROPOLITAN WATER
DISTRICT. (photo #3) From these photos, it appears this is where a certain group of people
could easily enter the Cemetery. The graffitti is rampant! Finally, after two years the chain link
fence is being repaired, one little problem,,, not in compliance with the CUP,,, The conditions
below are not being honored,,respected, ignored you name it, so typical of the relationship they
hold dear ....... in violation of the CUP ... JUST FOLLOW THE RULES!!! By the way, I highly
recommend the razor wire the MWD uses ....
NOVEMBER 17, 2015 ......
1. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR GREEN HILLS CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102,,,,,, THIS APPROVAL IS A REVISION TO THE GREEN HILLS
MASTER PLAN , AND SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE "MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
SUBMITTAL PACKAGE" BOOKLET DATED JANUARY 29, 2007, PREPARED BY J. STUART
TODD INC. NUMBER( 27) FENCING,,, The existing chain link fence and wrought iron fence,
which surrounds the perimeter of the cemetery site, shall be maintained. On those areas"of the
fence specifically owned by the cemetery , and where not directed otherwise by the adjacent
water authority, NO BARBED WIRE ON THE TOP OF THESE FENCES IS ALLOWED , AND
ANY EXISTING BARBED WIRE SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF FINAL
APPROVAL OF THIS MASTER PLAN REVISION. This appears to be a direct violation of the
CUP, but again, not surprising .... Instead of removing the BARBED WIRE, In (photo #4) you
can view them adding BARBED WIRE to the existing fences. It appears they are trying to be in
compliance with the SOLID FENCES AND WALLS. (This is part of the January 31, 2017
conditions of approval.) So they add the green vinyl to the existing chain link fences, and top it
off with BRAND new BARBED WIRE. What do you call a chain link fence with green slats
added? If you have a great imagination you could, sort of say, the vinyl strips make this a solid
fence!!!
JANUARY 31, 2017 .........
2. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR GREEN HILLS CEMETERY MASTER PLAN, THIS
APPROVAL IS A REVISION TO THE GREEN HILLS MASTER PLAN, AND SHALL BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE 'MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL PACKAGE" BOOKLET
DATED JANUARY 29, 2007, PREPARED BY J. STUART TODD INC., NUMBER (4)
FENCING AND WALLS,,, Freestanding fences and walls throughout the property. Fences and
walls (excluding perimeter fences and walls) located outside of structure setbacks may
accommodate niches or vault interments and are not subject to interment setbacks ..
PERIMETER FENCES AND WALLS SHALL BE SOLID. A solid fence is strongly
constructed, not flimsy! Enclosed (photo #5) you shall see an example of a solid wall or
fence. Now this is impressive!!! I recommend this around the perimeter of the cemetery, and
guess what ,,they would be in compliance with the Conditional Use Permit. .. No barbed wire,
razor wire or green vinyl slats, (pretending to have a solid fence) and making it a little more
difficult for whomever wants to enter the cemetery,,)!!! Could be a legal win ..
INDEMNIFICATION .. AS OF DECEMBER 19, 2017 GC 54956.9(d)(4) Based on existing
facts and circumstances, the legislative body of City of Rancho Palos Verdes is still deciding
whether to initiate litigation against Green Hills Memorial Park, regarding indemnification in the
following cases,,85166493, 85160652, BC629637, (Sharon Loveys, et,al,) Apparently, Green
Hills has not paid the first indemnification signed January 18, 2016,. so I ask again .. among the
19 conditions of approval for this MAJOR GRADING PERMIT #5 baffles me, how can you trust
they will ever pay any of the fees owed .. Closed sessions cost the city money ... I believe the
voting public ( Rancho Palos Verdes ) would be furious if they knew Green Hills had not taken
care of their financial obligations. The next big question., HOW MUCH MORE WILL IT COST
THE CITY TO LITIGATE?
Thank you, Sharon Loveys
NOTICE OF DECISION
Oct 24,2017
Almost exactly nine months after World War 11 ended, "the
cry of the baby was heard across the land," historian Landon
Jones later described the trend. More babies were born in 1946
than ever before, 3.4 million 20% more than in 1945 and the
trend continued until 1964 when the boom finally tapered off,,,
Thus, "The Baby Boomers, "I have heard sources say that we
have between 60 and 70 million baby boomers living today, so
you might ask what does any of this have to do with Green
I-IiUs! ! ! Green Hills has lots to gain and profit .... to get ready
for the BABY BOOMERS,, ( Notice of Decision Oct. 24 2017) I
noticed that Green I-Iills applied earlier in the month (August 7)
and the application deemed incomplete for processing based on
insufficient information. Green Hills doing what it does best,
completely confuse the projects, to their benefit. Thank you
someone.
1. GRADING .... approve a Major Grading Permit (Decision
Oct.24 2017) to conduct 41,200 cubic yards, Lets go back a few
years "ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT TI-IE ACTUAL
QUANTITY OF GRADING THAT HAS BEEN CONDUCTED
BETWEEN 1991THROUGH2004, WI-IICH IS 288,814
CUBIC YARDS (CUT AND FILL), IS 89,475 CUBIC YARDS
MORE THAN ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY ORIGINAL
RESOLUTION NO. 91-7 ,,, Since the applicant has previously
perlormed grading in excess of the Master Plan, the City
required a topographic baseline survey (April 2016) prepared by
Bolton Engineering Corp, showing all existing grades and states
all future grading will be measured against this baseline.
Someone measured 89,475 cubic yards off ... Did the City
punish Green I-Iills, doubt it. .. where did the so called "dirt"
go ... I would love to share .. .I HAVE NOT SEEN THE
BASELINE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF AREA 5 ! Again
confused regarding "gross dirt movements." Someone told me
once "dirt is dirt" maybe with that attitude it explains why the
"dirt"or so grading was 89,475 cubic yards off. It also states in
the resolution that "Prior to any grading permit the Applicant
shall submit an as-build topographical survey and wet-stamped
by licensed engineer depicting the finished grades." It is
confusing to me that the NOTICE OF DECISION, contains 19
conditions, I hope that Green Hills will conf orrn to all these
conditions? Since we are only speaking about Area 5, why are
they combining Area 6 in the proposed grading? Again,
confusing. Staff claims, the proposed grading is consistent with
the findings made by the City Council for the master plan and
the "proposed contours will continue to resemble the existing
contours as memorialized in the City-Accepted topo. plan in
2016." I would need to see the actual baseline survey prepared
by Bolton Engineering Corp, and divide the "cut and fill"
between each area and actually see the "existing contours as
memorialized."
2. NUMBER OF INTERMENTS .... Since I am concerned
about AREA 5, in 2007 Green 1-Ulls Master Plan, states LAKE
VIEW GARDEN is 5.0 acres of total development ...
GROUND BURIALS~ 3440 Double Depth Lawn Crypts,
FAMILY ESTATES, 58 family estates (8-12 capacity) Total
around 7460 interments in a 5 acre development. In September
2017 we receive a "NOTICE OF DECISION" regarding a Major
Grading Permit,, for AREA 5. Since Green Hills confused the
project in AREA 1 land created hell for Vista Verde folks, we
became concerned and asked for clarification. October we
received (NOTICE of DECISION) and Ms. Kim explained the
questions/concerns, regarding the total number of proposed earth
interments, she states, " Master Plan is a conceptual document
that illustrates the long-term vision of build-out scenario for
Green Hills." Again she clarified because of the gradual increase
in 'the number of interments (perhaps BABY BOOMERS?) there
is no maximum number of interments set by the Council-
approved Master Plan. IF NOT, then very important it
SHOULD BE with the onslaught of BABY BOOMERS. The
notice included the following, 3894 lawn crypts, 150 semi-
private (up to six crypts per area.) Then 450 family estates (up
to 5 crypts per area.) Then we have 291 Lawn niches, What does
this mean, I thought a niche is a place in a mausoleum where
the cremated remains are placed. Are they going to be in a
"columbarium," or placed in the 3 feet wall, you state no
houses and condominiums )will add to the density and
congestion. Interesting Highland Park, is directly across from
Green Hills Park. Combine that with the Baby Boomers, What
do you think,,, increase in traffic, density ...
3. VAULTS ... It has been brought to my attention hundreds
of vaults are being stored on the hill by Area 6, again
ASSUMING (as they usually do) they will get approval from
City. This reminds me of the INSPIRATION SLOPE fiasco, buy
the vaults then use the excuse we have no where to store
them!!! Did anyone suggest,, SEND TJ-IEM BACK, (ha ha.)
Green Hills practiced deception and bad-faith in connection
with the construction of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum. TWO
SEPARATE INVESTIGATIVE AGENCIES were hired by the
city to try and figure out what happened. The bottom line Green
I-Iills was found to have practiced deception and bad-faith, and
unfortunately the City continues to allow the deception.
4. INDEMNIFICATION .... Among the 19 conditions of
approval for this MAJOR GRADING PERMIT number 5
baffles me," The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and
hold harmless, the city and it continues ... (Exhibit A, Conditions
of Approval) Green l-Iills has continued to practice "deception
and bad-faith" throughout its most recent history. WHY
WOULD THE ( City ) have GREEN HILLS sign another
INDEMNITY AGREEMENT again, IF THEY HA VE NOT
buildings are being considered, so very, very confusing. The
lawn crypts were double depth in the Master Plan 2007, so are
these single or double? Again confusing, all this under a
Grading permit,,J read somewhere in resolution number
2017-03 the Director can approve minor improvements
condition No.2a(l) and the way I read NOTICE OF DECISION
it states, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT, What makes this a
Major grading permit, compared to a minor modification?
Where is the General Plan Amendment? According to the City's
zoning law or the State law the correct term is "INTERMENT"
when human remains are interred in the ground. Green Hills
used crypts or niches, confusing and misleading again
demonstrating deception and bad-faith.
The bottom line regarding the number of interments,,, 60 to
70 million baby boomers will be crowding all cemeteries in the
next 18 years, and many will be heading to GREEN .HILLS.
Accordfng to some friends of the cemetery, ( International
Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association) t}le facts they
used to show the decrease of visitors is a farce, the case study
(2009) comes from a Veterans Cemetery in the state of New
York. First of all, the study was done 8 years ago, and the study
never considered the BABY BOOMERS. The other interesting
item, think of the weather in New York compared to Southern
California, perhaps that would contribute to the number they
quote (0.01239) visitor per grave per week.
Traffic congestion along Western Ave combined with
Highland Park development (adding around 676 homes, town
HONORED the first one. (signed by Doug Willmore, Anthony
Taylor, Ellen Berkowitz and John Resich dated January 18,
2016) Bad behavior should not be rewarded.
"Litigation pending against Green Hills." A few weeks ago
I noticed on the CITY's Agenda and in Closed Session about
GreenHiUs ... so they aren't paying their bills. Shocked! Green
Hills again, not following through with the agreement and
paying their "MORAL and legal responsibilities" which as far
as many folks (and I MEAN many) thought the city gave in to
all their demands. The information provided by the two separate
agencies were shoved under the rug, (waste of tax payers
money ) and not one word of the conclusion of the agencies,
( deception and bad-faith) mentioned in each of the
INDEMNITY agreements. A lawsuit to collect money promised
to the City through a INDEMNITY AGREEMENT, and the city
has to take them to court to collect. Looks to me the CITY is
being BULLIED (despise the word) by GREEN HILLS. Please
explain to me WHY would you RECOMMEND and APPROVE
a Major Grading permit, when Green Hills owes the CITY
money? The taxpayers should be furious.
5. ALXERNATIVES ... I suggest the Director ... Deny,
without prejudice, the Major Grading Permit (Case No.
ZON2017-00324) because of the increase in traffic throughout
the residential neighborhoods as of the result of information
shared in this letter.
Thank you, Sharon Loveys
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late correspondence
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, January 15, 2018 5:21 PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: PB Bend Feasibility Study
Knight FS CC ltr. 1-15-18.docx
From: Jim Knight [mailto:knightjim33@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 5:18 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: PB Bend Feasibility Study
Jan. 15, 2018
RE: Agenda on PB Feasibility Study for Jan. 16, 2018
Mayor and Council members
I have just had the opportunity to read the Draft Feasibility Study to remediate the Portuguese Bend Landslide. l have
the following comments:
1) The FS proposes to repair the existing corrugated piping system. If you have walked the area, you will see that
the CM system is ripped apart by differential movement of the landslide. I see no reason to waste additional taxpayer
dollars on "fixing" the existing system as it is as it will inevitably be torn apart again.
2) The same differential land movement would destroy "Directional subsurface drains." No one can predict where
the earth will separate in this land flow.
3) Installing concrete swales will also be torn apart for the same reason no matter how much rebar is installed.
4) The FS states" The installation of dewatering wells by the City in areas affected by the Portuguese Bend and
Abalone Cove landslides has proven to be an effective met~od of slowing down landslide movement by removing~ .
groundwater from the slide plane." I am not sure where the consultant got his information, but if you look into the
records of previous groundwater wells operated by the City in the PB land flow area, you will see that the wells
become non-functional very rapidly (6 months to 1 year) as the ground movement shears off the extraction piping.
Dewatering wells work well in the Abalone Cove Abatement District as the differential land movement is
minimal. Portuguese Bend is much greater differential movement. The only feasible place for dewatering wells here
is at the top of the land flow where movement is minimal. This is not discussed in this FS.
All of the above puts into question the analysis that lead to the conclusion that these mitigation measures would have
"Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence".
5) The map showing drainage channels does not address what happens to the water when it reaches the depressed
area just north of PVDS. One just has to drive by to see it is much lower than the road. Will it be pumped? Or is the
plan to tunnel under the highway? If drain pipes are installed under the road, how will this affect the long term
stability of the road when those drainage pipes are separated and the new collected, concentrated drainage flow
undermines the subsurface creating a sink hole?
6) There is no reference as to who would be served by a "Centralized Sewer System" or how it could be installed
other than above ground with sewer pipes running all through the PB Preserve.
7) Not enough information is given to judge the feasibility of the following: Directional Subsurface Drains•
Buttressing• Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall• Drilled Piers or Flexible Liner System and Components.
8) There were some suggestions given at the Workshops not given in this FS. For instance, someone suggested
supporting PVDS on caissons down to the basalt bedrock and allowing the land flow to pass below the road
surface. The caissons could be shaped below the surface with an uphill pointed edge to reduce the resistance to the
flow.
9) Where is the analysis of drainage coming from development projects in RPV above the head of this land flow?
10) I am a Board member of the Abalone Cove Landslide District (A CLAD) and I am not aware of any attempt to
formally reach out to us for information or feedback. We have many years of data with hydro-geologic, monitoring
and dewatering information that might be of use.
11) In addition, there are individuals that have lived in Portuguese Bend for many years and have a wealth of historic
knowledge. I have personally helped Bob Douglas measure water flow in Kelvin Canyon on the western edge of the
FS project area. I have noticed that that flow under Narcissa Dr. has mysteriously ceased. Any study you approve
should have made an attempt to gather as much information as possible.
2
I would request that the Council get answers to these and other questions and redirect the consultant to address them
before accepting the report as your roadmap.
Thank you all for dedicating your time in serving our City. I know how much work it takes and I appreciate your
leadership at the helm of this fine ship.
Jim Knight
3
Jan. 15,2018
RE: Agenda on PB Feasibility Study for Jan. 16, 2018
Mayor and Council members
I have just had the opportunity to read the Draft Feasibility Study to remediate the
Portuguese Bend Landslide. I have the following comments:
1) The FS proposes to repair the existing corrugated piping system. If you have
walked the area, you will see that the CM system is ripped apart by differential
movement of the landslide. I see no reason to waste additional taxpayer dollars
on "fixing" the existing system as it is as it will inevitably be torn apart again.
2) The same differential land movement would destroy "Directional subsurface
drains." No one can predict where the earth will separate in this land flow.
3) Installing concrete swales will also be torn apart for the same reason no matter
how much rebar is installed.
4) The FS states" The installation of dewatering wells by the City in areas affected
by the Portuguese Bend and Abalone Cove landslides has proven to be an
effective method of slowing down landslide movement by removing
groundwater from the slide plane." I am not sure where the consultant got his
information, but if you look into the records of previous groundwater wells
operated by the City in the PB land flow area, you will see that the wells
become non-functional very rapidly (6 months to 1 year) as the ground
movement shears off the extraction piping. Dewatering wells work well in the
Abalone Cove Abatement District as the differential land movement is
minimal. Portuguese Bend is much greater differential movement. The only
feasible place for dewatering wells here is at the top of the land flow where
movement is minimal. This is not discussed in this FS.
All of the above puts into question the analysis that lead to the conclusion that
these mitigation measures would have "Long-term Effectiveness and
Permanence".
5) The map showing drainage channels does not address what happens to the
water when it reaches the depressed area just north of PVDS. One just has to
drive by to see it is much lower than the road. Will it be pumped? Or is the
plan to tunnel under the highway? If drain pipes are installed under the road,
how will this affect the long term stability of the road when those drainage
pipes are separated and the new collected, concentrated drainage flow
undermines the subsurface creating a sink hole?
6) There is no reference as to who would be served by a "Centralized Sewer
System" or how it could be installed other than above ground with sewer pipes
running all through the PB Preserve.
7) Not enough information is given to judge the feasibility of the following:
Directional Subsurface Drains • Buttressing • Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Wall • Drilled Piers or Flexible Liner System and Components.
8) There were some suggestions given at the Workshops not given in this FS. For
instance, someone suggested supporting PVDS on caissons down to the basalt
bedrock and allowing the land flow to pass below the road surface. The
caissons could be shaped below the surface with an uphill pointed edge to
reduce the resistance to the flow.
9) Where is the analysis of drainage coming from development projects in RPV
above the head of this land flow?
10) I am a Board member of the Abalone Cove Landslide District (ACLAD) and I
am not aware of any attempt to formally reach out to us for information or
feedback. We have many years of data with hydro-geologic, monitoring and
dewatering information that might be of use.
11) In addition, there are individuals that have lived in Portuguese Bend for many
years and have a wealth of historic knowledge. I have personally helped Bob
Douglas measure water flow in Kelvin Canyon on the western edge of the FS
project area. I have noticed that that flow under Narcissa Dr. has mysteriously
ceased. Any study you approve should have made an attempt to gather as much
information as possible.
I would request that the Council get answers to these and other questions and
redirect the consultant to address them before accepting the report as your
roadmap.
Thank you all for dedicating your time in serving our City. I know how much
work it takes and I appreciate your leadership at the helm of this fine ship.
Jim Knight
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late correspondence
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, January 15, 2018 5:24 PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Letter to RPV council re feasibility study.pdf
Letter to RPV council re feasibility study.pdf; ATTOOOOl.txt
From: Marianne Hunter [mailto:2hunter@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 5:23 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Letter to RPV council re feasibility study.pdf
Dear City Council,
I am currently caring for my mother who is in hospice. (Unlike past years, I haven't been attending CC meetings, but I have
followed city matters.). Because I'm focused on family, please accept my signing on to this letter, along with my husband My
husband and I have read this letter and find it is thorough and comprehensive. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions.
Please count two more citizens of this great city as saying it is precipitous to go forward with this awful plan.
Marianne and William Hunter
1 Cinnamon Lane
Portuguese Bend
1
KENNETH W. SWENSON
EVA CICORIA
28981 PALOS VERDES DR. E.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 9027 5
(310) 547-5689
swensonsathome@aol.com
January 13, 2018
Via electronic mail to cc@mvca.gov
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Draft Feasibility Study, Agenda Item 2, Council Meeting January 16, 2017
Dear Honorable Mayor Brooks, Honorable Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Honorable Council
Members Alegria, Cruikshank and Dyda:
We have reviewed the Draft Feasibility Study Update dated December 22, 2017, prepared by
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. (the "FS") and the phrase that comes to mind is "Just say
no." The FS paints a picture of the Portuguese Bend Reserve becoming a massive construction
site for a decade or more and thereafter an unsightly debris field, all at a cost of $53 million or
more with no guarantee that the slide will slow or stop or that any major destructive events will
be prevented. It fails to honor the commitment to preserve the Preserve; fails to honor the
Conservation Easement; and fails to avoid or minimize environmental impacts as required by
CEQA and the NCCP/HCP. The FS doesn't even provide a comprehensive hydrology study,
which is the one thing attendees to the Landslide Abatement Subcommittee meetings agreed
should be the initial and primary focus of the consultant effort.
To begin, we oppose for multiple reasons the proposed 65 foot wide grading and channeling
through the Portuguese Bend Reserve canyons.
First, the canyon areas of the Preserve contain some of the most robust vegetation available in
the City's open space, and provide shelter and a water source for animal life as proven by
wildlife cams placed in the Preserve. To wipe out those zones of vegetation as the FS proposes
would set the Preserve and the City's required conservation efforts back by decades, perhaps
permanently. Species currently in the Preserve, protected or otherwise, will be at a minimum
dislocated during the decade or more of work, and possibly lost permanently. This land was set
aside to mitigate loss of habitat and animals elsewhere in the City; to destroy the habitat and
animals on this land that was supposed to be protected, for a project of dubious need and success,
is outrageous.
A second reason we oppose the channelization of the canyons is that, while the FS indicates that
the canyon channelization could be vegetated, the exhibits illustrating that work show that any
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
January 13, 2018
Page2
such vegetation would be minimal at best. The FS proposes "islands" of sacs filled with native
soil and native plants. One problem with this is that "islands" are the epitome of fragmented
habitat which science tells us is ineffective. Another problem is that native plants have very
deep roots that would likely not do well in the proposed sacs. There is also the concern as to
whether or how long the sacs will survive the elements and avoid being washed away in
significant rain events.
Our third point of opposition regarding channelizing the canyons is that the canyons in the
Preserve are largely steep-sided, but all drawings of the geotextile-lined channels show canyons
with shallow sides and installation methods that require the sides to be shallow. In other words,
while it is never mentioned in the FS, it appears that this canyon work would in fact require
massive grading of the sides of all three canyons, potentially undermining the stability of the area
and affecting not only the dense habitat in the canyons, but all habitat for a significant distance
on each side.
Fourth, the canyon channelization work itself, with an average of 65 foot wide rock beds, will
result in fragmentation of the Preserve, detrimental to a healthy ecosystem and something that
the contiguous Preserve was created to avoid.
The fifth reason we opposed canyon channelization is that the channelization will result in years
of closed trails during construction, and will be a major visual blight during and after
construction, with multiple 65 foot wide scars down the length of the Preserve, becoming the
most visible and defining feature in what should have been a beautiful, thick cover of coastal
sage and its related plant palette.
In addition to channelization, the FS contains the proposal to pump concrete into fissures each
year. While the lower slide area in particular does have quite a few fissures, the image of
concrete pock marks increasingly dotting the area when one fissure after another is filled with
concrete is not attractive. Water has a way of finding cracks, so the effectiveness of this
approach is questionable. And what happens when the earth continues to move-where do these
clumps of concrete end up? Additionally, does the concrete add weight that is counterproductive
in the effort to slow the landflow? Moreover, this requires concrete pump trucks to constantly
drive over and through habitat to access the fissures. Was this taken into account in assessing
take? Has this method been attempted in other areas and what were the results? It is easy to
imagine this resulting over years or decades in a large, concrete debris field in lower Portuguese
Bend Reserve.
The staff report accompanying the FS suggests that the NCCP in its current state provides
sufficient existing "take" within the Preserve to allow for this work. Whether or not this is the
case has yet to be determined, since the FS itself states that significant additional study needs to
be performed to know exactly how the work would be performed. Once staging, access, spoils
piles and other construction activity-along with the myriad construction impacts such as dust,
noise, vibrations, access and other effects and activities that damage plant and animal life over a
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
January 13, 2018
Page 3
broader area than just the work zone for such a large project-are taken into account, it seems
unlikely that the existing take would be sufficient for the proposed work.
In any event, the existence of available take is not the end of the inquiry. Simply because take is
available does not mean it is permitted or should be utilized. The FS acknowledges the necessity
of complying with the NCCP/HCP, and conducting activities in the least impactful way is one of
the requirements. Impacts are not ignored E>imply because take is available. At least with respect
to channelization and filling fissures, it is not the case that the FS proposes the least impactful
alternatives and we do not believe such activity is in compliance with the obligations imposed by
the NCCP/HCP and CEQA.
Ultimately, we question whether the highly aggressive and destructive efforts proposed in the FS
are necessary for the City to achieve a reasonable result in landslide mitigation. Previous
mitigation efforts like dewatering wells, which have been highly successful here and in other
communities, are much less expensive, invasive and destructive, and much less a blight on our
community. The FS includes dewatering, and we believe the City should focus its efforts in that
direction, and in the direction of long-term efforts to convert applicable neighborhoods to sewers
and storm drains.
The Portuguese Bend Landslide has been active for more than 60 years. Its current rate of
movement is a tiny fraction of what it once was, due in large part to actions the City has
previously taken to abate the movement. Despite vague assertions, the slide does not present
imminent risk of death or injury. We understand that Palos Verdes Drive South annual repair
costs are significant, but over the last 40 years the costs of that repair and of all other City repair
and restoration work have still been less than the City proposes to pay now for a project that no
one can even promise will work. The City !Jroposes to spend an estimated $1. 7 5 million per year
($53 million over the next 30 years, assuming no cost overruns), plus costs that will still be
necessary to repair PV Drive South from time to time over that period and interest on public debt
incurred to pay for the project, all in order to save $1 million per year or so in roadway and other
repair costs. This does not make fiscal sense.
The City, County and public utilities are already effectively managing the landflow impacts at a
cost which is less than the proposed abatement work. In our view, nothing that the FS proposes
offers an improved plan when considering the costs-both monetary and otherwise. We urge you
first to reconsider the necessity and desirability of this project in the context of other needs and
opportunities that would benefit and improve our community. If the project is to move forward
we urge you to remove the canyon channelization work and filling fissures with concrete from
the scope.
We appreciate you taking these comments into account.
Sincerely,
s/Ken Swenson s/Eva Cicoria
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late correspondence
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, January 16, 2018 7:49 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Draft Feasibility Study, Agenda Item 2, Council Meeting January 16, 2017
180116 Letter to RPVCC Re. PBNR FS.doc
From: Barry Holchin [mailto:bholchin@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 2:50 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Draft Feasibility Study, Agenda Item 2, Council Meeting January 16, 2017
Please see the attached letter.
Thanks.
Barry Holchin
1 ~-
Barry W. Holchin
3949 Via Valmonte
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274-1153
310.378.3780 H 310.872.6071 M
bholchin@cox.net
January 16, 2018
Via electronic mail to cc@rpvca.gov
City Council
City ofRancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Draft Feasibility Study, Agenda Item 2, Council Meeting Jan. 16, 2018
Dear Honorable Mayor Brooks, Honorable Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic and
Honorable Council Members Alegria, Cruikshank and Dyda:
I have read the comments submitted by Bill Ailor (1/14), Eva Cicoria and Ken
Swenson (1/13), Randall Harwood (1/13) and Robert Kautz (1/15) regarding this
subject and share the concerns expressed by all of them.
As a 45 year Palos Verdes resident, I have until recently run or hiked on virtually
every legitimate trail on the Peninsula, also having led others on probably hundreds
of those hikes in what has become the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. When the
opportunity came to purchase this land in order to protect the increasingly rare
habitat from development and degradation, I was heartened by the cooperation
shown by multiple governmental bodies and residents in achieving that goal -
habitat protection and even gradual improvement in areas where invasive plants
can be supplanted with native species; but this project seems to be going in the
opposite direction.
From an economic perspective, costs for projects of this nature tend to only go in
one direction, and that is up. Whereas the uncertainty associated with costs for the
occasional road repair appear to be within fairly narrow bounds, likely totaling less
that the eventual costs for this project (which is of dubious success); and that
approach appears to involve little or no risk of habitat destruction.
Thanks for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Barry Holchin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late correspondence
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, January 16, 2018 7:49 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Jan. 16 agenda item -PB Landslide FS
Emch letter to RPV City Council 15 Jan 2018.docx
From: Pam Emch [mailto:pemchl@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 10:10 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Pam Emch <pemchl@gmail.com>
Subject: Jan. 16 agenda item -PB Landslide FS
Please see the attached letter.
Regards,
Pamela Emch
1 {).
January 15, 2018
Pamela G. Emch
806 N. Lucia Ave.
Redond0 Beach, CA 90277
310-722-873 7
pernch l@grnail.com
Via electronic mail to cc@rpvca.gov
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Draft Feasibility Study for Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex (PBLC) -Agenda Item 2,
Council Meeting January 16, 201 7
Dear Honorable Mayor Brooks, Honorable Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Honorable Council
Members Alegria, Cruikshank and Dyda:
I read with interest the Draft Feasibility Study (FS) Update dated December 22, 2017, prepared
by Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. (DBS&A). I have been a resident of the South Bay
area for over 50 years and for many of those years I have enjoyed hiking on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula -in particular in the areas on the south side of the peninsula, both before and after
they were designated as preserves. I have been so impressed by the dedication that the city of
Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) has made to preserving open space in its natural form. This
dedication is not matched by most other cities in the South Bay -it is truly something to be
proud of. However, I also understand the dilemmas associated with the ongoing landslide areas
on the peninsula and within the city of RPV. I received my PhD in Civil and Environmental
Engineering I Hydrology from UCLA in 1995. One of the case studies that I read about during
my studies was the Portuguese Bend landslide; I subsequently also read about the Abalone Cove
landslide. In my many hikes, I have been on every trail in that area and always look at the
landscape and the slide areas with the "eye" of a civil/water resource engineer. I also have
friends who live in the PBLC area and are impacted by the shifting land.
I'd like to provide you with a summary of my comments on the FS. First, I was pleased to see
that DBS&A thoroughly reviewed and summarized prior material -reports, feasibility studies -
that I had also read. They were also straightforward in saying what their FS encompassed, and
what it did not. Here are a few points that I hope you will consider:
• A hydrologic study of the PBLC area has not been conducted. There is no strearnflow data;
there is only one precipitation gage (at the top of the hill on Crest); the estimates for runoff
for the watershed are based on 100-year runoff estimates which may or may not represent the
PBLC area appropriately. Making decisions going forward without such a study is risky.
Furthermore, it appears that residents ofRPV who have been involved in this effort through
the past year specifically requested a hydrologic study. DBS&A themselves state that a
hydro logic study is not within the scope of this FS. The FS states "A full engineering and
hydrologic study would be needed to appropriately design and size the liner and channel
system." I would go further and say that a full hydrologic study would be needed to
determine if, or how much, a liner and channel system (as well as some of the other
remediation approaches recommended) would be of benefit.
• Data gaps also exist with respect to the current well system in the PBLC (apparently due to
lack ofrecord keeping within the city of RPV). Lack of this data also introduces risk; this
gap could and should be remedied.
• Impacts of the specific remediation approach of implementing a liner and channel system in
Upper Portuguese, Ishibashi, and Paintbrush Canyons are not sufficiently detailed. The FS
frequently qualifies statement of the impacts with words and phrases like "can be designed to
be largely integrated into the natural habitat." (Italics are mine.) These canyons are, in areas,
more like deep clefts. I recommend seeing some examples of successful implementation of
similar approaches in very topographically similar areas that preserve the natural habitat prior
to making any decisions about such an approach. And this would be after a full hydrologic
study of the watershed is conducted. Without this rigor, RPV would not have conducted an
adequate engineering cost-benefit analysis.
• More details are needed on how filling fissures with cement would be successful in this
specific area. New fissures are continually appearing both in the "badlands" area lower
down and also on up the hill. Some are small, some are large -but there are many and they
continually change. It would seem to me that this approach might not be feasible.
Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Council Members Alegria, Cruikshank and Dyda -
please consider these comments in the spirit in which they are provided. Rancho Palos Verdes
has made many good choices over the years that have been a model for how a city can deal with
the difficulty of balancing engineering decisions with preserving the natural environment. I'm
sure that your residents, as well as grateful residents from neighboring cities such as myself, will
appreciate the additional time and rigor that this topic deserves.
Sincerely,
Dr. Pamela G. Emch
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:47 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: Comments on proposed landslide remediation (for January 16, 2018 meeting)
From: Emile NID [mailto:emilenid@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:40 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Comments on proposed landslide remediation (for January 16, 2018 meeting)
Respected RPV City Council members, planners, and other decision makers,
I'd like to comment on the proposed landslide remediation plans.
Is it necessary to remediate the landslide ?
The proposed project will impact the Palos Verdes Peninsula Nature Preserves.
Some of the goals "restore ecology/geology (ocean & land)" and
"Preserve ocean life/tide pools," and
"Protect the integrity of the nature preserve -Oceanic and Land Ecosystems"
do not appear to be goals but items that will likely be
impacted as collateral damage due to the landslide remediation.
The canyon lining option impacts the main ripario.n channels of the preserve.
These are habitats with some of the highest biodiversity that should not be tampered with.
The estimated coastal sage scrub habitat loss of 120+ acres is not acceptable.
Adding 40+ acres with mostly non-native habitat as Lower Filiorum
does not do justice to offset the proposed impacts.
Emile Fiesler
Long-time resident
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, January 16, 2018 11:12 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Remediation of the Portuguese Bend Landslide
From: Tom Long [mailto:Tom_LongRPV@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 11:12 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com> <knightjim33@gmail.com>
Subject: Remediation of the Portuguese Bend Landslide
Dear councilmembers,
I want to join in the concerns expressed to you by Jim Knight in his letter of January 15, 2016 and
add a few of my own.
Any slide remediation efforts seem likely to be very expensive. What will the revenue sources
be? What competing capital improvements will be denied or deferred if the remediation effort is
funded? And will the revenue sources match the benefits? In other words will the expense be
primarily borne by the city but the benefit primarily received by private property owners? You may
recall that the city in the past has not used public funds to pay for improvements, such as electrical
undergrounding on private property, that primarily benefit private property owners. Some of the
city's expenditures of public funds in the past, for example spending on neighborhood entry
monuments on private property, have raised questions of whether the city was making gifts of
public funds.
Will the expense be justified by the prospects of a long term solution? If the base of the slide that
needs to be stabilized is in the ocean, what are the realistic prospects of a long-term solution? Will
the city be trying to stabilize land that is likely to be destabilized in the future by sea level
rise? Rather than trying to fight nature, should the city consider accommodating it? Is the city
creating plans for an orderly, managed retreat from land that is likely to erode or otherwise
become unstable in the future as sea levels continue to rise? If not, why not?
Even if the city were successful in stabilizing the base of the slide in the ocean, what will the result
be? Is it likely that we will end up with a large mud flat along the coast (as the council was advised
in the past was a possibility)?
As unfortunate as the slide is, our councilmembers are charged with reasonably allocating public
resources for public purposes. Until some questions are answered, I am concerned that resources
1 ~.
devoted to trying to remediate the landslide are not being allocated reasonably and are not being
allocated for public purposes.
Tom Long
Tom Long Personal E-Mail
Email tom !ongrpv@msn.com
Mobile 213.718.4484
If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify me.
2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
ACTING CITY CLERK
JANUARY 15, 2018
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, January 16, 2018 City Council meeting:
Item No.
H
2
3
Description of Material
Emails from: Carolynn Petru, Tracy Burns
Email exchange between Public Works Director Sassoon and Eva
Cicoria; Emails from: Allen Franz; Bill Ailor; Randy Harwood;
Kenneth Swenson and Eva Cicoria; Sunshine; Judith Herman; Noel
Park; Rob Kautz
Emails from: Ken Delong; Sharon Yarber; Carolynn Petru
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180116 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Emily Colborn
Friday, January 12, 2018 11:41 AM
CityClerk
Subject: Fwd: January 16th Agenda, Consent Calendar Item H -SB 786
Late Corr
Emily Colborn
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Carolynn Petru <carolynn.petru@gmail.com>
Date: January 12, 2018 at 11:23:08 AM PST
To: cc@rpvca.gov
Subject: January 16th Agenda, Consent Calendar Item H -SB 786
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council -
I am strongly in favor of the staff recommendation to send the draft letter of support for SB 786 to
Senator Allen. It's very important that alcohol and drug recovery facilities are subject to at least the
same minimum separation requirement as other state licensed group homes.
Although it's better than nothing, I honestly don't feel 300 feet is an adequate distance. A 1,000 foot
minimum separation would be far more effective in preventing over concentration in a given
neighborhood. However, reclaiming more local land use control from the state is a battle for another
day.
Thank you very much for considering my input and taking action on this item.
Sincerely,
Carolynn Petru
Rancho Palos Verdes
1 H.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Emily Colborn
Monday, January 15, 2018 1:51 PM
Nathan Zweizig
Teresa Takaoka
FW: RPV -City Council Meeting 01/16/18 Agenda Item H, support but recommend
modifications
Late Correspondence
Emily Colborn, MMC, City Clerk
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5208
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail,
From: Tracy Burns [mailto:akamomma@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 1:10 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RPV -City Council Meeting 01/16/18 Agenda Item H, support but recommend modifications
I support Agenda Item H (SB-786) with modification~.
Regarding SB-786 -the minimum distance should be changed from 300ft to I OOOft and it should be for ALL group
homes in residential neighborhoods. The I OOOft is consistent with other CA state laws and by including ALL group
homes one group is not specifically targeted therefore in compliance with the FHAA. Since residential
neighborhoods were not designed to have group homes, then they should at least be spread out so their impact on the
neighborhood can be better managed by surrounding residents -ex. parking, trash, traffic. Multiple groups homes on
one residential street would be the equivalent of living next to a hospital with no parking lot = a nightmare.
Most of these sober living homes are rackets that bleed the system and the addicts dry for their own financial
gain. They even advertise in other states and recruit addicts to come out here to increase enrollment. Then when ACA
(Covered California) insurance benefits run out the SLH's release the addicts and they have no where to go. Costa
Mesa has the highest concentration of the SLH's in SoCal and they are dealing with a nightmare.
https ://www.ocregister.com/2017 /0 5 /21 /how-some-southern-cal iforn ia-drug-rehab-centers-expl oit-addicti on/
Sincerely,
Tracy Burns
1 H.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Thursday, January 11, 2018 8:08 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Emily Colborn
FW: landslide feasibility study Staff Report error
From: cicoriae@aol.com [mailto:cicoriae@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 5:07 AM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Cc: avona@pvplc.org; swensonsathome@aol.com; barbailor@gmail.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore
<DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap
<gyap@rpvca.gov>; ginnymayc@gmail.com; afranz@pacbell.net; Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>
Subject: landslide feasibility study Staff Report error
Elias,
Thank you for acknowledging the error. I would think that such a material misstatement would call for reissuance of the Staff
Report highlighting the error and correction. Anybody reading this Staff Report having in mind that the City has expended $45
million over 5 years vs. $45 million over 40 years is going to react to other parts of the report differently, particularly
when thinking about the proposed project costs of $53.3 million over 30 years (the sum of the quoted estimate for project
implementation, maintenance, and monitoring--p. 2 of the Feasibility Study Executive Summary). Moreover, the Feasibility
Study is less than helpful on this issue when it provides the statement on p. 3 that "The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has
expended nearly 50 million dollars over the years [emphasis added]", therein inflating the dollar amount and not providing a
meaningful timeframe for those expenditures. It should go without saying that this type of reporting calls into question the
accuracy of other information provided which we, the public, have no reasonable way to verify.
Please consider reissuing the Staff Report highlighting this error on the listserve. (People should not have to wade through the
entire document again in order to find what has been corrected.)
Eva
-----Original Message-----
From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
To: cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com>
Cc: avona <avona@pvplc.org>; swensonsathome <swensonsathome@aol.com>; barbailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; CC
<CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian
<AraM@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; ginnymayc <ginnymayc@gmail.com>; afranz <afranz@pacbell.net>;
Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, Jan 10, 2018 5:42 pm
Subject: RE: added costs to the landslide feasibility study
Good Evening Eva and Happy New Year:
Thanks for bringing this typo to our attention. The correct wording of the question was "How much has been spent
over the last 40 years?" The answer is correct.
We will make a correction to the notes for the July 6th meeting.
Pis let me know if you have any more questions.
1 J. Thanks again:
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310-544-5292
From: cicoriae@aol.com [mailto:cicoriae@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 9:30 AM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Cc: avona@pvplc.org; swensonsathome@aol.com; barbailor@gmail.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore
<DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap
<gyap@rpvca.gov>; ginnymayc@gmail.com; afranz@pacbell.net; Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: added costs to the landslide feasibility study
Elias (or anybody on this list who can answer with authority), I do have a basic question. In the Staff Report, quoting from the
July 6 Subcommittee Notes, we see the following:
1. How much has been spent over the last 5 years?
a. Answer-Close to 45 million
If memory serves me, at the Subcommittee meetings, the $45 million referred to what was spent over something more like 40
years. Obviously this is material information and no small discrepancy. Which is more accurate?
Eva
-----Original Message-----
From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
To: cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com>
Cc: avona <avona@pvplc.org>; swensonsathome <swensonsathome@aol.com>; barbailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; CC
<CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian
<AraM@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; ginnymayc <ginnymayc@gmail.com>; afranz <afranz@pacbell.net>
Sent: Mon, Dec 18, 2017 1: 14 pm
Subject: RE: added costs to the landslide feasibility study
Good Afternoon Eva,
To clarify, the change order is simply to ensure the Feasibility Study and the 2004 Council-approved draft NCCP are in line with
one another.
Pis let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
Thanks:
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
_{:lJ:y_Qf Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310-544-5292
2
From: cicoriae@aol.com [mailto:cicoriae@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 5:30 PM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Cc: avona@pvplc.org; swensonsathome@aol.com; barbailor@gmail.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore
<DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap
<gyap@rpvca.gov>; ginnymayc@gmail.com; afranz@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: added costs to the landslide feasibility study
Thank you for your reply. Note the wording that I quoted from the Staff Report stating that the City seeks to
I "integrate information and details regarding planned landslide stabilization activities into the draft NCCP"
The Staff Report does not say that the consultants want to be certain that the feasibility study takes into account the already-City
Council-approved NCCP.
Eva
-----Original Message-----
From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
To: cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com>
Cc: avona <avona@pvplc.org>; comswensonsathome <comswensonsathome@aol.com>; barbailor <barbailor@gmail.com>;
CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian
<AraM@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; ginnymayc <ginnymayc@gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 15, 2017 3:31 pm
Subject: RE: added costs to the landslide feasibility study
Ms. Cicoria,
The City is in receipt of your email to the City Council expressing concerns regarding the change order to the Daniel B. Stephens
contract that is on the December 19th Council agenda. The change order is mainly intended to cover additional costs incurred
by the consultant to review the DRAFT Feasibility Study to the Draft NCCP document. Much of the additional work is to ensure
that the feasibility study is consistent with the NCCP, as you expressed as a concern.
The Council Sub-Committee is still reviewing the DRAFT Feasibility Study but we hope to have the DRAFT document out on our
website for public review before the holiday break.
While the holidays are upon us and I understand your concerns about working on important items leading into the holidays,
the December 19th City Council agenda is still a busy working meeting. The City Council agendas are completely full though the
first quarter of 2018. We never received any kind of direction or interest from the City Council in making the December 19
meeting brief and relatively ministerial. There are a lot of vital projects that the City is working on. Finally, this type of item is
typically treated as a consent item. It is not being treated any differently from other similar issues. As you know, any member
of the public or Council member can easily pull an item off the consent calendar.
Pis let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310-544-5292
From: cicoriae@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 5:53 AM
3
Subject: added costs to the landslide feasibilitiy study
To: CC
Cc: avona@pvplc.org, ginnymayc@gmail.com, swensonsathome@aol.com, barbailor@gmail.com, Noel Park
Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Councilmembers Allegria, Cruikshank and Dyda,
I see on the consent calendar for the December 19 City Council meeting an item to add to the cost of the Landslide
Feasibility Study. Please deny consent.
I haven't seen the Landslide Feasibility Study. I'd like to see it before you throw more money at it. I suspect others
in our community would like to see it, too. Slipping this in as a consent calendar item during the holidays, though,
assures that few residents will be aware of the item, let alone take the time to understand what it portends.
The Portuguese Bend Reserve is not a vacant lot that you can just go in and bulldoze and it has not been for over a
decade. It is a nature preserve. That was the City's commitment in approving the Natural Communities
Conservation Plan in 2004.
The fact that you are being asked to authorize the Daniel B Stevens firm to "integrate information and details
regarding planned landslide stabilization activities into the draft NCCP", rather than developing a plan for landslide
stabilization activities that takes into account the already-City Council-approved NCCP, suggests the City is
looking to renege on its commitment of more than a decade ago.
Just a few months ago, Councilman Dyda promised that any landslide abatement activity would "preserve the
Preserve." My letter to City Council of July 22, 2017 referencing Councilman Dyda's promise in Landslide
Abatement Subcommittee meetings to "preserve the Preserve" appears below. Preserving the Preserve would
require developing a plan for landslide stabilization that takes into account the NCCP, the Conservation Easement
over the Portuguese Bend Reserve, and the City's commitment to donors, taxpayers and volunteers that this land
will be protected from development; protected for its conservation values. The current proposal does none of that.
Donors and taxpayers who provided funds toward the acquisition of the lands enrolled in the NCCP relied on the
City's commitment to the NCCP in the form it was approved in 2004. Donors and volunteers who have continued to
support the protection, preservation, and restoration of the NCCP lands since the acquisition have relied on the
City's commitment as well. My husband and I have contributed thousands of volunteer hours and tens of thousands
of dollars in reliance on the City's commitment.
Disappointment hardly begins to describe my reaction to this agenda item.
The Staff Report and Change Order indicate that the landslide stabilization activities to be proposed by the Stevens
firm will destroy life in the Preserve, both directly by ripping out vast swaths of plants in pristine, densely vegetated
canyons, and indirectly by eliminating cover for wildlife and eliminating the water that sustains that wildlife. This is to
be proposed in one of the most visible and cherished parts of the PV Nature Preserve on land that was bought for
preservation and is held in the public trust.
The public deserves an opportunity to weigh in on this before money is spent on it.
The public deserves to understand where the money is going to come from to pay for the proposed Preserve-
destroying landslide stabilization attempts.
The public deserves to understand what the risks are of the proposed landslide stabilization attempts. Will the firm
doing the work indemnify the City if the heavy construction activity itself triggers landslide activity?
Will the firm guarantee that the landslide stabilization attempts they propose will be effective? Without guarantees
and indemnities, they have nothing to lose. Our community has a lot to lose.
Please honor my City's commitment to preservation of the Preserve and deny authorization for the added
expenditure, ask for immediate release of the Landslide Feasibility Study, and move forward with the NCCP in its
current form.
4
Eva Cicoria
-----Original Message-----
From: cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com>
To: cc <cc@rpvca.gov>
Cc: avona <avona@pvplc.org>; ginnymayc <ginnymayc@gmail.com>; noelparkone <noelparkone@gmail.com>;
AraM <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Sat, Jul 22, 2017 7:51 am
Subject: landslide abatement impacts
Councilmember Dyda, Mayor ProTem Duhovic, Mayor Campbell, and Councilmembers Brooks and Misetich,
I'm writing to you regarding the recent Landslide Subcommittee meetings, last Tuesday's City Council meeting
regarding the same, and related issues. Will you be directing City staff to engage a firm to work with the engineering
consultants to proactively assess environmental impacts of various options that the engineers are inclined to
propose?
I attended 3 of the 4 subcommittee meetings that involved community input. I support efforts to examine possible
means to slow the land flow or landslide in Portuguese Bend. However, at one of the subcommittee meetings when
the public was asked for proposals, I proposed that an assessment of the anticipated environmental impacts
(positive and negative) of any suggested project be made early on and made publicly available, so that the public
(and City Council) might be able to weigh against the benefits of the project not only the financial but the
environmental costs (aesthetics, habitat, recreation, etc.) when digesting the proposed RFP. My proposal got as
many votes as the other top vote getter at that particular meeting, yet I neither saw in the Staff Report nor heard at
the City Council meeting of July 18 mention of an environmental assessment being done in tandem with the
landslide-fix feasibility study.
While it is early in the process for developing an RFP and therefore we don't know yet what will be proposed by
consultants, some ideas have been floated, including horizontal drains across the Preserve and drains down the
canyons, and I think it prudent for all to keep an eye on the City's commitment to the Preserve. I applaud
Councilmember Dyda's acknowledgement at the City Council meeting of the investment we have made in the
Preserve. I also applaud Noel Park, Councilman Dyda, and others for expressing the desire to "preserve the
Preserve". Yet I have a hard time reconciling the types of infrastructure projects that are being discussed with the
notion that we want to preserve the Preserve.
I noticed the photo, below, of an infrastructure project that the Cotton Shires firm did:
It should go without saying that this sort of infrastructure project would be a non-starter in the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve. I wonder where is your line in the sand regarding the degree of destruction of the Preserve that you are
willing to tolerate in order to reduce PV Drive South maintenance costs?
Noel Park mentioned to you that CEQA requires that environmental impacts from a project be avoided to the extent
possible, minimized if unavoidable, and mitigated in any event. In other words, we should not approach a project
with a plan to mitigate or fix it later, but rather try to avoid the impacts. That is imperative in a nature
preserve. Restoration after the damage is done is a long and costly endeavor. And sometimes unsuccessful,
particularly when you want to minimize water entering the area. Take a look sometime at the current state of the
City's project to restore the habitat destruction a contractor did at Toyon Trail in Portuguese Bend Reserve. Very few
native plants installed by volunteers have survived. Instead of lush native vegetation, there are a bunch of unsightly
Groasis dew-collecting boxes left behind.
As I said, mention has been made of horizontal drains and drains down the canyons. Are you aware of the beautiful,
lush habitat in these canyons, which provides homes for wildlife, including protected species, and enhances the
public's recreational enjoyment of the Preserve?
The Preserve is not a vacant lot; it's not a developable lot. Any project must be designed in the most sensitive way
possible. Yet, unless this message is conveyed forcefully to the consultants, it is doubtful that will be an influencing
factor in what is ultimately proposed. And if it is not, and instead the typical infrastructure-building approach of
demolish, build, and disregard environmental impacts or just "fix it later" is adopted, I anticipate that there will be
tremendous community push back .
Hence, my question whether you will direct City staff to engage a firm to work with the engineering consultants to
proactively assess environmental impacts of various options that the engineers are inclined to propose in order that
the public and you all understand those impacts--those costs--and are able to weigh that information in making
decisions regarding landslide abatement projects. The assessment should apply to both the land and ocean
environments potentially impacted by the projects.
5
Another question I have is whether the engineering consultants will be tasked with asserting the degree of success
they anticipate in what they propose (including various options) and the degree of certainty behind their
assertions. The stories told in the historical documents, and the debris left behind in the Preserve after past project
failures, suggest that understanding the likelihood of success of any proposed project would be prudent.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Eva Cicoria
6
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Thursday, January 11, 2018 10:07 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Emily Colborn
FW: added costs to the landslide feasibility study
From: Allen Franz [mailto:afranz@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 6:08 PM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; cicoriae@aol.com
Cc: avona@pvplc.org; swensonsathome@aol.com; barbailor@gmail.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore
<DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap
<gyap@rpvca.gov>; ginnymayc@gmail.com; Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: added costs to the landslide feasibility study
Good catch, Eva!
On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 5:42 PM, Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Good Evening Eva and Happy New Year:
Thanks for bringing this typo to our attention. The correct wording of the question was "How much has
been spent over the last 40 years?" The answer is correct.
We will make a correction to the notes for the July 5th meeting.
Pis let me know if you have any more questions.
Thanks again:
From: cicoriae@aol.com [mailto:cicoriae@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 9:30 AM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Cc: avona@pvplc.org; swensonsathome@aol.com; barba:or@gmail.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore~ •
<DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap
<gyap@rpvca.gov>; ginnymayc@gmail.com; afranz@pacbell.net; Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: added costs to the landslide feasibility study
Elias (or anybody on this list who can answer with authority), I do have a basic question. In the Staff Report, quoting from the
July 6 Subcommittee Notes, we see the following:
1. How much has been spent over the last 5 years?
a. Answer-Close to 45 million
If memory serves me, at the Subcommittee meetings, the $45 million referred to what was spent over something more like 40
years. Obviously this is material information and no small discrepancy. Which is more accurate?
Eva
-----Original Message-----
From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
To: cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com>
Cc: avona <avona@pvplc.org>; swensonsathome <swensonsathome@aol.com>; barbailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; CC
<CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian
<AraM@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; ginnymayc <ginnymayc@gmail.com>; afranz <afranz@pacbell.net>
Sent: Mon, Dec 18, 2017 1:14 pm
Subject: RE: added costs to the landslide feasibility study
Good Afternoon Eva,
To clarify, the change order is simply to ensure the Feasibility Study and the 2004 Council-approved draft NCCP are
in line with one another.
Pis let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
Thanks:
From: cicoriae@aol.com [mailto:cicoriae@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 5:30 PM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Cc: avona@pvplc.org; swensonsathome@aol.com; barbailor@gmail.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore
<DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap
<gyap@rpvca.gov>; ginnymayc@gmail.com; afranz@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: added costs to the landslide feasibility study
Thank you for your reply. Note the wording that I quoted from the Staff Report stating that the City seeks to
I "integrate information and details regarding planned landslide stabilization activities into the draft NCCP"
The Staff Report does not say that the consultants want to be certain that the feasibility study takes into account the already-City
Council-approved NCCP.
Eva
2
-----Original Message-----
From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
To: cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com>
Cc: avona <avona@pvplc.org>; comswensonsathome <comswensonsathome@aol.com>; barbailor <barbailor@gmail.com>;
CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian
<AraM@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; ginnymayc <ginnymayc@gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 15, 2017 3:31 pm
Subject: RE: added costs to the landslide feasibility study
Ms. Cicoria,
The City is in receipt of your email to the City Council expressing concerns regarding the change order to the Daniel
B. Stephens contract that is on the December 19th Council agenda. The change order is mainly intended to cover
additional costs incurred by the consultant to review the DRAFT Feasibility Study to the Draft NCCP
document. Much of the additional work is to ensure that the feasibility study is consistent with the NCCP, as you
expressed as a concern.
The Council Sub-Committee is still reviewing the DRAFT Feasibility Study but we hope to have the DRAFT
document out on our website for public review before the holiday break.
While the holidays are upon us and I understand your concerns about working on important items leading into the
holidays, the December 19th City Council agenda is still a busy working meeting. The City Council agendas are
completely full though the first quarter of 2018. We never received any kind of direction or interest from the City
Council in making the December 19 meeting brief and relatively ministerial. There are a lot of vital projects that the
City is working on. Finally, this type of item is typically treated as a consent item. It is not being treated any
differently from other similar issues. As you know, any member of the public or Council member can easily pull an
item off the consent calendar.
Pis let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310-544-5292
From: cicoriae@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 5:53 AM
Subject: added costs to the landslide feasibilitiy study
To: CC
Cc: avona@pvplc.org, ginnymayc@gmail.com, swensonsathome@aol.com, barbailor@gmail.com, Noel Park
Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Councilmembers Allegria, Cruikshank and Dyda,
I see on the consent calendar for the December 19 City Council meeting an item to add to the cost of the Landslide
Feasibility Study. Please deny consent.
I haven't seen the Landslide Feasibility Study. I'd like to see it before you throw more money at it. I suspect others
in our community would like to see it, too. Slipping this in as a consent calendar item during the holidays, though,
assures that few residents will be aware of the item, let alone take the time to understand what it portends.
3
The Portuguese Bend Reserve is not a vacant lot that you can just go in and bulldoze and it has not been for over a
decade. It is a nature preserve. That was the City's commitment in approving the Natural Communities
Conservation Plan in 2004.
The fact that you are being asked to authorize the Daniel B Stevens firm to "integrate information and details
regarding planned landslide stabilization activities into the draft NCCP", rather than developing a plan for landslide
stabilization activities that takes into account the already-City Council-approved NCCP, suggests the City is
looking to renege on its commitment of more than a decade ago.
Just a few months ago, Councilman Dyda promised that any landslide abatement activity would "preserve the
Preserve." My letter to City Council of July 22, 2017 referencing Councilman Dyda's promise in Landslide
Abatement Subcommittee meetings to "preserve the Preserve" appears below. Preserving the Preserve would
require developing a plan for landslide stabilization that takes into account the NCCP, the Conservation Easement
over the Portuguese Bend Reserve, and the City's commitment to donors, taxpayers and volunteers that this land
will be protected from development; protected for its conservation values. The current proposal does none of that.
Donors and taxpayers who provided funds toward the acquisition of the lands enrolled in the NCCP relied on the
City's commitment to the NCCP in the form it was approved in 2004. Donors and volunteers who have continued to
support the protection, preservation, and restoration of the NCCP lands since the acquisition have relied on the
City's commitment as well. My husband and I have contributed thousands of volunteer hours and tens of thousands
of dollars in reliance on the City's commitment.
Disappointment hardly begins to describe my reaction to this agenda item.
The Staff Report and Change Order indicate that the landslide stabilization activities to be proposed by the Stevens
firm will destroy life in the Preserve, both directly by ripping out vast swaths of plants in pristine, densely vegetated
canyons, and indirectly by eliminating cover for wildlife and eliminating the water that sustains that wildlife. This is to
be proposed in one of the most visible and cherished parts of the PV Nature Preserve on land that was bought for
preservation and is held in the public trust.
The public deserves an opportunity to weigh in on this before money is spent on it.
The public deserves to understand where the money is going to come from to pay for the proposed Preserve-
destroying landslide stabilization attempts.
The public deserves to understand what the risks are of the proposed landslide stabilization attempts. Will the firm
doing the work indemnify the City if the heavy construction activity itself triggers landslide activity?
Will the firm guarantee that the landslide stabilization attempts they propose will be effective? Without guarantees
and indemnities, they have nothing to lose. Our community has a lot to lose.
Please honor my City's commitment to preservation of the Preserve and deny authorization for the added
expenditure, ask for immediate release of the Landslide Feasibility Study, and move forward with the NCCP in its
current form.
Eva Cicoria
-----Original Message-----
From: cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com>
To: cc <cc@rpvca.gov>
Cc: avona <avona@pvplc.org>; ginnymayc <ginnymayc@gmail.com>; noelparkone <noelparkone@gmail.com>;
AraM <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Sat, Jul 22, 2017 7:51 am
Subject: landslide abatement impacts
Councilmember Dyda, Mayor ProTem Duhovic, Mayor Campbell, and Councilmembers Brooks and Misetich,
4
I'm writing to you regarding the recent Landslide Subcommittee meetings, last Tuesday's City Council meeting
regarding the same, and related issues. Will you be directing City staff to engage a firm to work with the engineering
consultants to proactively assess environmental impacts of various options that the engineers are inclined to
propose?
I attended 3 of the 4 subcommittee meetings that involved community input. I support efforts to examine possible
means to slow the land flow or landslide in Portuguese Bend. However, at one of the subcommittee meetings when
the public was asked for proposals, I proposed that an assessment of the anticipated environmental impacts
(positive and negative) of any suggested project be made early on and made publicly available, so that the public
(and City Council) might be able to weigh against the benefits of the project not only the financial but the
environmental costs (aesthetics, habitat, recreation, etc.) when digesting the proposed RFP. My proposal got as
many votes as the other top vote getter at that particular meeting, yet I neither saw in the Staff Report nor heard at
the City Council meeting of July 18 mention of an environmental assessment being done in tandem with the
landslide-fix feasibility study.
While it is early in the process for developing an RFP and therefore we don't know yet what will be proposed by
consultants, some ideas have been floated, including horizontal drains across the Preserve and drains down the
canyons, and I think it prudent for all to keep an eye on the City's commitment to the Preserve. I applaud
Councilmember Dyda's acknowledgement at the City Council meeting of the investment we have made in the
Preserve. I also applaud Noel Park, Councilman Dyda, and others for expressing the desire to "preserve the
Preserve". Yet I have a hard time reconciling the types of infrastructure projects that are being discussed with the
notion that we want to preserve the Preserve.
I noticed the photo, below, of an infrastructure project that the Cotton Shires firm did:
It should go without saying that this sort of infrastructure project would be a non-starter in the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve. I wonder where is your line in the sand regarding the degree of destruction of the Preserve that you are
willing to tolerate in order to reduce PV Drive South maintenance costs?
Noel Park mentioned to you that CEQA requires that environmental impacts from a project be avoided to the extent
possible, minimized if unavoidable, and mitigated in any event. In other words, we should not approach a project
with a plan to mitigate or fix it later, but rather try to avoid the impacts. That is imperative in a nature
preserve. Restoration after the damage is done is a l::>ng and costly endeavor. And sometimes unsuccessful,
particularly when you want to minimize water entering the area. Take a look sometime at the current state of the
City's project to restore the habitat destruction a contractor did at Toyon Trail in Portuguese Bend Reserve. Very few
native plants installed by volunteers have survived. Instead of lush native vegetation, there are a bunch of unsightly
Groasis dew-collecting boxes left behind.
As I said, mention has been made of horizontal drains and drains down the canyons. Are you aware of the beautiful,
lush habitat in these canyons, which provides homes for wildlife, including protected species, and enhances the
public's recreational enjoyment of the Preserve?
The Preserve is not a vacant lot; it's not a developable lot. Any project must be designed in the most sensitive way
possible. Yet, unless this message is conveyed forcefully to the consultants, it is doubtful that will be an influencing
factor in what is ultimately proposed. And if it is not, and instead the typical infrastructure-building approach of
demolish, build, and disregard environmental impacts or just "fix it later" is adopted, I anticipate that there will be
tremendous community push back .
Hence, my question whether you will direct City staff to engage a firm to work with the engineering consultants to
proactively assess environmental impacts of various options that the engineers are inclined to propose in order that
the public and you all understand those impacts--those costs--and are able to weigh that information in making
decisions regarding landslide abatement projects. The assessment should apply to both the land and ocean
environments potentially impacted by the projects.
Another question I have is whether the engineering consultants will be tasked with asserting the degree of success
they anticipate in what they propose (including various options) and the degree of certainty behind their
assertions. The stories told in the historical documents, and the debris left behind in the Preserve after past project
failures, suggest that understanding the likelihood of success of any proposed project would be prudent.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Eva Cicoria
5
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late corr
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, January 15, 2018 8:04 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Emily Colborn
FW: Proposed Landslide Abatement in Portuguese Bend Area
Tranquil Beauty.pdf
From: William Ailor [mailto:billailor@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 8:46 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Proposed Landslide Abatement in Portuguese Bend Area
Letter attached.
Bill Ailor
1
1052 Via Palestra, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
January 14, 2018
To Mayor Brooks and Members of the City Council of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Dear Mayor Brooks and City Council Members:
Tranquil Beauty.
Those two words were key to the preservation of the land that is now being considered for
modification.
In the 1980s, our community began an effort to preserve the tranquil beauty of the Portuguese
Bend area. That tranquil beauty was manifest in this open space included the presence of trails
where a person could be alone with his/her thoughts, could enjoy ocean views comparable with
the best in the world, could see wildlife and plants in their natural home--not a zoo or museum,
and could hear the wind blowing through grasses. All of this in an area isolated from the
sounds and lights of the millions of people who live in the Los Angeles area. This was a place
where a family could come and experience a bit of nature that has remained quiet and
undisturbed for decades and more.
About 20 years later, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, supported by funds set aside by
taxpayers and by donations from local residents, acquired this land and accepted the
responsibility to preserve its critical natural habitat and open space values-values that are
essential to the area's "tranquil beauty."
As you consider the impact of the proposed modifications, please ask yourself "How will the
introduction of heavy trucks bringing materials and construction crews to work in canyons and
stream beds, fill fissures, and provide long-term maintenance affect the tranquil beauty of this
splendid area?"
Tranquil beauty brought many of us to Palos Verdes. The acres of open space and its natural
inhabitants in the area under consideration are the heart of this resource. Please do not take
actions that will degrade the tranquil beauty we have today.
Sincerely,
Bill Ailor, Founder
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, January 15, 2018 8:06 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Emily Colborn
FW: Landslide Feasibility Study
ccrpv.pdf
From: Randy Harwood [mailto:randykharwood@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2018 3:15 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Landslide Feasibility Study
Please see attached document
Randy Harwood
1
January 13, 2018
Randall K. Harwood
3719 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
{310) 265-0889
randykharwood@gmail.com
Via electronic mail to cc@rpvca.gov
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Draft Feasibility Study, Agenda Item 2, Council Meeting Jan. 16, 2018
Dear Honorable Mayor Brooks, Honorable Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic and
Honorable Council Members Alegria, Cruikshank and Dyda
I have read and reviewed the update to the Draft Feasibility Study dated
Dec. 22, 2017. I understand the motivation to attempt to reduce the effects
of the landslide in the Portuguese Bend area, as the inconvenience to the
City and the public when Palos Verdes Drive South requires repairs and the
expense, estimated at $1 million per year for the city occurs frequently, if
not annually.
As a resident of Palos Verdes for 16 years, I have enjoyed the hiking trails
throughout the Preserve and especially those in the Portuguese Bend
Reserve. A number of the proposed means to reduce the slide seem to be
very expensive, not at all assured of success, and most importantly to me,
very destructive to the habitat of the proposed work sites, especially the.
three canyons slated for geotextile channeling. As I understand it, these
canyons have some of the greatest concentrations of mature vegetation in
the entire Reserve. Many of the native (and non-native) plants have root
systems of ten to fifteen feet in depth or more. It appears the geotextile
materials, as diagrammed, would not provide adequate soil depth for these
plants with deeply penetrating roots, reducing the vegetation permanently
in these areas. This vital vegetation has taken years to grow and provides
food and shelter for all kinds of animals, including reptiles, birds and
mammals. Of course this includes the threatened and endangered
California Gnatcatcher and the Coastal Cactus Wren, as well as gray foxes.
As diagramed in the study, this channeling likely would require extensive
grading of the steep portions of the canyons, likely extending well beyond
the estimated sixty-five feet in the study. Meanwhile, this project would
apparently take many years 1 (a decade or more?), which would result in a
very unpleasant, noisy, dusty and unsightly Reserve for many years to
come.
I believe the acquisition of the land and the creation of the Land
Conservancy was designed to protect the area from destruction and to
provide a habitat for flora and fauna to survive and thrive on this Peninsula,
as much as possible, free from the deleterious effects of human activity and
development. This proposal, especially the channelization of the canyons 1
appears to me to completely ignore the hard work and support both
physically and financially of the many volunteers and the generous and
committed public that have worked for decades to protect this land.
I have a hard time understanding how the City would wish to disrupt this
beautiful, natural area by spending upwards of $50 million over 30 years, to
save $1 million a year, and at such a cost to the esthetic experience of the
public and natural habitat that would be severely impacted for a decade or
more.
Thank you for taking these comments into account when you decide on this
important matter.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, January 15, 2018 8:07 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Emily Colborn
FW: Draft Feasibility Study for Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex
Letter to RPV council re feasibility study.pdf
From: swensonsathome@aol.com [mailto:swensonsathome@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2018 12:00 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: cicoriae@aol.com
Subject: Draft Feasibility Study for Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex
Please see attached. Thank you.
1 ~-
KENNETH W. SWENSON
EVA CICORIA
'28981 PALOS VERDES DR. E.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
(310) 547-5689
swensonsathome@aol.com
January 13, 2018
Via electronic mail to cc@rpvca.gov
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Draft Feasibility Study, Agenda Item 2, Council Meeting January 16, 2017
Dear Honorable Mayor Brooks, Honorable Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Honorable Council
Members Alegria, Cruikshank and Dyda:
We have reviewed the Draft Feasibility Study Update dated December 22, 2017, prepared by
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. (the "FS") and the phrase that comes to mind is "Just say
no." The FS paints a picture of the Portuguese Bend Reserve becoming a massive construction
site for a decade or more and thereafter an unsightly debris field, all at a cost of $53 million or
more with no guarantee that the slide will slow or stop or that any major destructive events will
be prevented. It fails to honor the commitment to preserve the Preserve; fails to honor the
Conservation Easement; and fails to avoid or minimize environmental impacts as required by
CEQA and the NCCP/HCP. The FS doesn't even provide a comprehensive hydrology study,
which is the one thing attendees to the Landslide Abatement Subcommittee meetings agreed
should be the initial and primary focus of the consultant effort.
To begin, we oppose for multiple reasons the proposed 65 foot wide grading and channeling
through the Portuguese Bend Reserve canyons.
First, the canyon areas of the Preserve contain some of the most robust vegetation available in
the City's open space, and provide shelter and a water source for animal life as proven by
wildlife cams placed in the Preserve. To wipe out those zones of vegetation as the FS proposes
would set the Preserve and the City's required conservation efforts back by decades, perhaps
permanently. Species currently in the Preserve, protected or otherwise, will be at a minimum
dislocated during the decade or more of work, and possibly lost permanently. This land was set
aside to mitigate loss of habitat and animals elsewhere in the City; to destroy the habitat and
animals on this land that was supposed to be protected, for a project of dubious need and success,
is outrageous.
A second reason we oppose the channelization of the canyons is that, while the FS indicates that
the canyon channelization could be vegetated, the exhibits illustrating that work show that any
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
January 13, 2018
Page 2
such vegetation would be minimal at best. The FS proposes "islands" of sacs filled with native
soil and native plants. One problem with this is that "islands" are the epitome of fragmented
habitat which science tells us is ineffective. Another problem is that native plants have very
deep roots that would likely not do well in the proposed sacs. There is also the concern as to
whether or how long the sacs will survive the elements and avoid being washed away in
significant rain events.
Our third point of opposition regarding channelizing the canyons is that the canyons in the
Preserve are largely steep-sided, but all drawings of the geotextile-lined channels show canyons
with shallow sides and installation methods that require the sides to be shallow. In other words,
while it is never mentioned in the FS, it appears that this canyon work would in fact require
massive grading of the sides of all three canyons, potentially undermining the stability of the area
and affecting not only the dense habitat in the canyons, but all habitat for a significant distance
on each side.
Fourth, the canyon channelization work itself, with an average of 65 foot wide rock beds, will
result in fragmentation of the Preserve, detrimental to a healthy ecosystem and something that
the contiguous Preserve was created to avoid.
The fifth reason we opposed canyon channelization is that the channelization will result in years
of closed trails during construction, and will be a major visual blight during and after
construction, with multiple 65 foot wide scars down the length of the Preserve, becoming the
most visible and defining feature in what should have been a beautiful, thick cover of coastal
sage and its related plant palette.
In addition to channelization, the FS contains the proposal to pump concrete into fissures each
year. While the lower slide area in particular does have quite a few fissures, the image of
concrete pock marks increasingly dotting the area when one fissure after another is filled with
concrete is not attractive. Water has a way of finding cracks, so the effectiveness of this
approach is questionable. And what happens when the earth continues to move-where do these
clumps of concrete end up? Additionally, does the concrete add weight that is counterproductive
in the effort to slow the landflow? Moreover, this requires concrete pump trucks to constantly
drive over and through habitat to access the fissures. Was this taken into account in assessing
take? Has this method been attempted in other areas and what were the results? It is easy to
imagine this resulting over years or decades in a large, concrete debris field in lower Portuguese
Bend Reserve.
The staff report accompanying the FS suggests that the NCCP in its current state provides
sufficient existing "take" within the Preserve to allow for this work. Whether or not this is the
case has yet to be determined, since the FS itself states that significant additional study needs to
be performed to know exactly how the work would be performed. Once staging, access, spoils
piles and other construction activity-along with the myriad construction impacts such as dust,
noise, vibrations, access and other effects and activities that damage plant and animal life over a
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
January 13, 2018
Page 3
broader area than just the work zone for such a large project-are taken into account, it seems
unlikely that the existing take would be sufficient for the proposed work.
In any event, the existence of available take is not the end of the inquiry. Simply because take is
available does not mean it is permitted or should be utilized. The FS acknowledges the necessity
of complying with the NCCP/HCP, and conducting activities in the least impactful way is one of
the requirements. Impacts are not ignored simply because take is available. At least with respect
to channelization and filling fissures, it is not the case that the FS proposes the least impactful
alternatives and we do not believe such activity is in compliance with the obligations imposed by
the NCCP/HCP and CEQA.
Ultimately, we question whether the highly aggressive and destructive efforts proposed in the FS
are necessary for the City to achieve a reasonable result in landslide mitigation. Previous
mitigation efforts like dewatering wells, which have been highly successful here and in other
communities, are much less expensive, invasive and destructive, and much less a blight on our
community. The FS includes dewatering, and we believe the City should focus its efforts in that
direction, and in the direction of long-term efforts to convert applicable neighborhoods to sewers
and storm drains.
The Portuguese Bend Landslide has been active for more than 60 years. Its current rate of
movement is a tiny fraction of what it once was, due in large part to actions the City has
previously taken to abate the movement. Despite vague assertions, the slide does not present
imminent risk of death or injury. We understand that Palos Verdes Drive South annual repair
costs are significant, but over the last 40 years the costs of that repair and of all other City repair
and restoration work have still been less than the City proposes to pay now for a project that no
one can even promise will work. The City proposes to spend an estimated $1.75 million per year
($53 million over the next 30 years, assuming no cost overruns), plus costs that will still be
necessary to repair PV Drive South from time to time over that period and interest on public debt
incurred to pay for the project, all in order to save $1 million per year or so in roadway and other
repair costs. This does not make fiscal sense.
The City, County and public utilities are already effectively managing the land:flow impacts at a
cost which is less than the proposed abatement work. In our view, nothing that the FS proposes
offers an improved plan when considering the costs-both monetary and otherwise. We urge you
first to reconsider the necessity and desirability of this project in the context of other needs and
opportunities that would benefit and improve our community. If the project is to move forward
we urge you to remove the canyon channelization work and filling fissures with concrete from
the scope.
We appreciate you taking these comments into account.
Sincerely,
s/Ken Swenson s/Eva Cicoria
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, January 15, 2018 8:07 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Emily Colborn
FW: Projects are being treated like islands, again
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2018 9:51 AM
To: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Trails <trails@rpvca.gov>; Trails@parks.ca.gov; Irving Anaya
<ianaya@rpvca .gov>
Subject: Projects are being treated like islands, again
Dear Mr. Willmore,
The community is chatting about three different projects which are on different timelines and appear to be
disconnected from the RPV General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan and the Trails Network Plan. They all
propose changes to the Palos Verdes Drive South Right of Way. They are Trump's application to change
the CUP on Tract 50666, the Safe Bike Lanes grant application adjacent to the Portuguese Bend Club and
the Feasibility Study for the Portuguese Bend Landflow.
Have these project's Design/Engineering Consultants been directed to follow the existing Trails Network
Plan including the Conceptual Trails Plan and the Conceptual Bikeways Plan? Have trail TYPE's been
assigned to the existing, proposed new and/or proposed to be modified unpaved pathways? Have these
projects been addressed in the Draft Trails Network Plan Update?
When will We the People and the City Council have the opportunity to comment on the continuity of the
proposed bike lanes, bike paths, roadside trails and the three corridors in the California Coastal Trail?
SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
1
Q.
Subject: FW: Draft Feasibility Study
From: Judy Herman [mailto:judyherman@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 1:36 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.go~>
Subject: Draft Feasibility Study
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Draft Feasibility Study, Agenda Item 2, Council Meeting January 16, 2017
Hon. Mayor Brooks, Hon. Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Hon. Council
Members Alegria, Cruikshank and Dyda:
I am disturbed by the Draft Feasibility Study Update, which details measures proposed to abate landslides in the
Bend Reserve. In deciding on any course of action it's wise to weigh the risks and benefits. In this case, the bene
unknown. We can't say that the measures will prevent or even slow land movement. The risks of harm are obvioL
involves tearing up large swaths of canyons that are supposed to be protected under the Natural Communities C(
Plan.
The Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) Committee volunteers labored for years to develop a plan that would allow ~
what is now known as the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, while assuring that the rare Coastal Sage Scrub habita
preserved in large enough contiguous sections to protect threatened plants and animals. The plan involved elimir
the redundant trails, which had proliferated without planning over the years, slicing up the habitat.
Now the landslide abatement plan proposes cutting 65-foot-wide channels through the canyons in the PortuguesE
Reserve, chopping the habitat into unsustainable chunks.
The proposed fix would cost at least $53 million and years of dust, noise and disruption to complete. Repairing Pi
Drive South also causes some disruption and financial cost, but much less than the proposed plan, which may nc
On the other hand, dewatering wells have helped stabilize land here and in other areas. That component of the p
effective and much less destructive and should be retained.
But as for the rest of the plan, the cure sounds worse than the disease. First, do no harm.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Judith B. Herman
Rancho Palos Verdes
1 4.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, January 15, 2018 2:03 PM
Nathan Zweizig
Emily Colborn
FW: Draft Feasibility Study for Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex
From: Noel Park [mailto:noelparkone@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 2:00 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; esassoon@rpvca.com
Subject: Draft Feasibility Study for Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex
Having read both the Draft Feasibility Study and the related staff report, and having attended all of the community
meetings referenced therein, I offer the following comments.
First, and most importantly, I have said at every opportunity that any project development process must include total
partnership and cooperation among the City's consultants, City staff, and the professional staff of the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC). The goal must be to have all of the stakeholders in agreement at the end. By
this means, disagreement and acrimony, which would have a high potential to delay or even derail the project can be
avoided. To date, I have not seen much evidence of any such process.
As to the specifics of the report, I would offer the foll0wing.
The horizontal drains seem like a good idea. They would be minimally disruptive to the Nature Preserve. The idea of
passive drainage by gravity is very attractive. I am concerned that the allowance made for maintenance may be too
little. The consultant points out that they are subject to the same issues of clogging as vertical wells. It would seem
that unplugging a 1500 foot horizontal drain would be a serious challenge. Even though they would be oriented
basically parallel to the slide, it would still seem that there would be a good possibility of damage in an area of such
high current land movement.
The proposal to convert septic systems to proper sewers is highly appropriate. I assume that negotiating an agreement
with Rolling Hills would be a difficult challenge. I would hope that this effort would go forward as a matter of top
priority.
The grouting of fissures is clearly important. But I share the concerns expressed by Ken Swenson and Eva Cicoria
about access for it. I note that the staff report references the requirement in the NCCP to carefully analyze and design
any required access roads to avoid and minimize habitat disruption. If access is not available within the range of a
boom pumping truck, it is quite feasible to hand lay temporary pipes and hoses to minimize the need for truck access.
While I recognize the need to conduct storm water out of the canyons, I have to believe that creative engineers can
come up with solutions much less destrucive of habit than the stone and geotextile drainage swales proposed. While
the cross sections shown in the report are very professional looking, they are very short on dimensions. If it is true, as
the report indicates, that the width required is 65 feet, the amount of habit destruction would be extremely large.
As much of the side slopes of the canyons are quite steep, one can only imagine the actual amount of grading required
to achieve the cross sections shown. As others have pointed out, these canyon/creek bottoms, aka "blue features",
contain some of the most valuable habitat in the Preserve. Just because the amount of habit destruction is within some
1 {).
allowable amount of "take" (a highly offensive turn of phrase if ever I saw one) does not mean that every possible
measure should not be taken to preserve such valuable habitat.
There have to be alternatives. I envision the use of the semi-flexible plastic storm drain pipes now in common use.
There could be staked in place in the same way as is commonly done for overside drains on engineered cut and fill
slopes. Flow could be intercepted by catchment structures at intervals along the canyon bottoms. Hopefully, these
structures could be prefabricated and/or built out of some sort of semi-flexible materials which could be installed with
a minimum of disruption to habitat. Something analogous to metal or precast concrete bin wall components. Or even
pressure treated timber or gabion baskets.
The sensitivity of the habit would justify flying the components in via helicopter to minimize the impacts. Similar
things have been done before as part of sincere preservation efforts. And I can envision it actually being less
expensive than the massive construction proposed.
These are only suggestions. I am confident that a professional search of world wide resources will likely turn up equal
or better solutions. Bulldozing 65+ foot wide swaths up the bottoms of the canyons is not acceptable in my view. I
challenge the assembled engineering talents to find better solutions.
Since the first public meeting, I have raised the issue that drying up the canyons will impact water resources for
wildlife. A careful reading of the meeting notes in the staff report will reveal a reference to "quail guzzlers". These are
structures which have built in the California desert to provide water for wildlife. Similar structures should be built in
the Preserve to replace the water lost to any project. They could be filled with water diverted from the canyon
drainage systems or, if need be, from domestic water sources.
You have to understand that the people who have given so much of their time, labor and financial resources to the
preservation and restoration of this land have strong emotional involvement with the Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS)
habitat. The loss of even one mature CSS plant is troubling and saddening. Never mind destruction of wildlife,
whether endangered or not.
You all are arguably the most important and responsible stewards of this land. I call upon you to make every possible
effort to protect it, and the natural plants and wildlife which reside therein.
Finally, a word about the cost. As I have said before, this project and the proposed Civic Center development combine
to constitute far and away the largest level of proposed expenditure in our City's history. One of the things that I have
most enjoyed about being a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes is the frugal and responsible manner in which the City's
finances have been managed. While other cities have famously struggled, we have remained stable and secure. Given
the level of expenditures now envisioned, I suggest that you have a responsibility to make every effort to make sure
that there is community understanding and consensus on the financial consequences.
Thank you for your patience and consideration. Again, I can only hope that any landslide remediation project will go
forward on the basis of community consensus and agreement.
Noel Park
6725 El Rodeo Road
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
562-413-5147
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late corr
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, January 15, 2018 4:20 PM
Nathan Zweizig
Emily Colborn
FW: Draft Feasibility Study, Agenda Item 2, Council Meeting January 16, 2017
RPV Kautz Re Feas Study Janl7.pdf; ATTOOOOl.txt
From: Rob K [mailto:rfkautz@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 4:19 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Draft Feasibility Study, Agenda Item 2, Council Meeting January 16, 2017
Please see the attached letter.
Thank you,
Rob Kautz
1
ROBERT F. KAUTZ
32072 Pacifica Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310. 418. 8016
January 15, 2018
Via electronic mail to cc@rpvca.gov
City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Draft Feasibility Study, Agenda Item 2, Council Meeting January 16, 2017
Dear Honorable Mayor Brooks, Honorable Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Honorable Council
Members Alegria, Cruikshank and Dyda:
I expressed to you at a meeting last fall that I supported investigation to find a means to stop the
landslide, but the recommendations in this FS are not a viable solution given the situation in RPV.
My strong conclusion now is that the City Council members should vote NO on the further steps
to mitigate the Portuguese Bend landslide through major construction and use of concrete in the
Portuguese Bend Preserve as outlined in the Draft Feasibility Study Update dated December 22,
2017, prepared by Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. (the "FS").
For me, neither the staff report nor the feasibility study really summarize for everyone to see
exactly how destructive this project will be to the views and aura of peacefulness that make RPV
what it is today. Why not have an artist paint a rendering of what these giant 65 foot wide
culverts will look like running up and down the hillside? And publish that picture in the Daily
Breeze? The main beneficiary of the direction contemplated in the FS will be the continuing
payments that the consulting firm who wrote the FS will receive, and the contractors that will
come behind them.
My opposition to the new proposed techniques in the FS is based on the following
understandings and opinions:
1. There is no guarantee this project will work, and there is no compelling explanation of
why it is expected to work on the size and scale of the Portuguese Bend landslide. The
scale and nature of the landslide in RPV is very rare, even worldwide, and the
channelization and concrete filling techniques appear to only be proven to be useful in
shallow canyons or situations without the massive underground clay layer causing all the
mischief in RPV. After all, wasn't the original controversy when the landslide started
whether the primal cause was the construction on the Crenshaw extension or the
combined weight of added houses, pools, and over-watering? Now we're going to try to
fix the situation by driving heavy trucks through the preserve, adding the weight of
concrete channels, and filling fissures with concrete plugs. This just doesn't make sense
to me.
2. The project will create a huge blighted area in the Portuguese Bend preserve during
construction visible from most viewpoints, whether looking up or down the slope. The
channels anticipated to be 65 feet wide will extend up and down a very wide area. Such
a large project with continuing reviews will extend for a decade or more, and the blighted
appearance may last forever, especially if cost estimates are over-run and aesthetic
remediation and land preservation priorities come up at the end after funds run out.
3. It is not credible to claim that after all of this construction, somehow the land will be
restored to a natural state as is expected by the citizens of RPV and the legions of
donors to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC). The techniques
Re: Draft Feasibility Study, Agenda Item 2, Council Meeting January 16, 2017
using shallow sacs above concrete culverts for plant restoration is not realistic, especially
for native plants which have deep roots to help survive drought conditions.
4. It is a requirement of the NCCP and various land conservation easements and
agreements that the part of the land involved in this project in the Portuguese Bend
Preserve must be treated as a preserve to be restored to sage brush habitat. This is the
basis upon which the public trust has been placed with the city and with PVPLC and the
public's support for this objective has been demonstrated through quantifiable financial
support for PVPLC -it has raised and spent approximately $1.5 million per year in RPV
for preserve restoration, education, etc. for at least five years. Large scale grading,
"channelization", and other aspects described in the FS would appear to abandon these
commitments.
5. The initial project cost estimate is ever $50 million, and actual costs on such a large and
unpredictable project are likely to over-run such a preliminary estimate to at least double
the initial estimate. Who knows what costs will be incurred once the construction begins
to open up the ground and we find out what it will actually take to complete the project.
Once gaping cuts in the land are created, RPV will be on the hook to pay for the
completion of the project with little ability to control costs down the line.
Once the concept of this proposal becomes more widely understood among the public in RPV,
and if the city continues on the path of these unproven techniques, at great expense and with the
potential to destroy much of the beauty of the Portuguese Bend area, I believe you will find very
substantial opposition will arise and funds expended further investigating this avenue will be
wasted.
Submitted in my humble opinion,
Rob Kautz
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Emily Colborn
Friday, January 12, 2018 9:29 PM
CityClerk
Subject: Fwd: Jan. 16 Council Agenda #3
Late Correspondence
From: Ken Delong <ken.delong@verizon.net>
Date: January 12, 2018 at 4:04:54 PM PST
To: <cc@rpvca.gov>
Cc: 'William Patton' <billpatton21@icloud.com>, 'Kit Ruona' <cjruona@cox.net>
Subject: Jan. 16 Council Agenda #3
Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, Councilmen Alegria, Cruikshank, Dyda.
Item 3 on Tuesday Council agenda concerning Council Rules and Procedures is very substantive and will require
considerable time to read and comment presuming community input is desired. I suggest that the Council
delay any actions for at least 30 days providing time for interested residents to read and comment.
Ken Delong
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, January 15, 20~.8 8:05 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Emily Colborn
FW: Rules of Procedure Manual
From: sharon yarber [mailto:momofyago@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 11:08 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Dave Aleshire <daleshire@awattorneys.com>
Subject: Rules of Procedure Manual
Dear Mayor Brooks and Members of the Council,
I hereby request that you postpone making any decisions with regards to the possible adoption of the proposed
Manual for 30 days until residents have an adequate opportunity to review the Manual and consider the impacts of
any revised provisions, which review necessitates an in depth comparison to the existing Rules. This is too important
a document to be considered quickly.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Sharon Yarber
1 3.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, January 15, 2018 3:33 PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: January 16th Agenda Item No. 3 -Rules of Procedure and Council Protocols
From: Carolynn Petru [mailto:carolynn.petru@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 3:32 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: January 16th Agenda Item No. 3 -Rules of Procedure and Council Protocols
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council -
I am very glad to see the existing Rules of Procedure and Council Protocols have been revised and merged into a
single document. Many thanks to the Council Subcommittee and staff for their good work on this effort.
I am especially gratified to see the additions regarding Council member's private email accounts, the clarifications
regarding the prohibition on disclosing confidential information, the many improvements to the Code of Conduct, and
the inclusion of a procedure for censuring officials who violate the rules. It's unfortunate some of these things must be
included, but they are important not only to protect the public's interest, but to maintain the public trust.
Regarding Section 4.7(e) -Texting, I suggest clarifying if Council members are also prohibited from texting with staff
during Council meetings. As currently drafted, it is unclear.
Finally, I encourage the Council to update and merge the existing City Council Policies into this new document for
further ease of use and transparency.
Sincerely,
Carolynn Petru
Rancho Palos Verdes
1 3.