The URL can be used to link to this page

20180220 Late CorrespondenceI VZW Wi-Fi ~ 4:28 PM -f . 86%( 1 1 11 nextdoor.com Q Search Nextdoor Invite 0 0 + Vince Vassallo, Rolling Hills Estates ~ · 27581 PV Drive E Redevelopment Last chance to get involved! The appeal hearing in front of the Rancho Palos Ve r des Mayor and City Council will be Tuesday evening 2/20/2018 at 7:00 PM. Fred Hesse Community Park 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard McTaggart Hall Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Attend and let your voice be heard or you can email the Planner your concerns. Octavio Silva OctavioS@rpvca.gov This project will result in 2 McMansions of over 5000 measuring up to 30 feet above grade and about 40 feet above PV Dr E. Moreover, they th r eaten to change the character of the neighborhood from semi-rural equestrian to Nextdoor for iOS Open Faster, easier, and free! 11 VZWWi-Fi ~ 4:32 PM "'1 v 84% ( )• " nextdoor.com Q Search Nextdoor 0 + about 40 feet above PV Dr E. Moreover, they threaten to change the character of the neighborhood from semi-rural equestrian to beach city u r ba:::n;;.·---=::::---- -- At the least, just drop the planner a quick message that the houses are too tall, too massive and not compatible with the neighborhood. Thank you! 4d ago · 50 neighborhoods in General Q Thank CJ Reply 11 Thanks · 6 Replies Gail Schirm, Rolling Hills Estates · 4d ago So are they tearing down the 2800 sq ft existing home to put up 2 on the 1 acre lot? Is that it? Q Thank Nextdoor for iOS Open Faster, easier, and free! I V L VY VY 1-r I 7 11 nextdoor.com D 0 + \::::.J 1 nanK Rhoanne Washington, Miraleste Hills, RPV · 3d ago Thank you for your post. I sent in a letter to Mr Silva. Q Thank Vince Vassallo, Rolling Hills Estates · 3d ago Yes the older house and pool will be entirely demolished. The 43000 SF is to be subdivided into 20,000 SF and 23000 SF lots. One is behind the other accessed only by easement, no flag lot. The building pad for both houses is only 21000 SF due to slopes and site restrictions. That puts both houses in the center of the big parcel. If you want a visual, look at 27591 PV Dr. East and reduced it by 20°/o. They put two of those front to back on the parcel next door. Not something we see in this neighborhood . (_) Thank Nextdoor for iOS Faster, easier, and free! Open 11 VZW Wi-Fi ~ 4:34 PM -f u 83%( ) i nextdoor.com 0 + 6J Saw the silhouette up, I was wondering if that was one or two homes. Q Thank Chela Cowden, Upper Hollywood Riviera · 2d ago I have a comment regarding this issue and many more to come: When local elections come up again, be careful who you vote for, and if if you haven't voted in the past take notice: Don't put people on the City Council who are builders and contractors. They are the one responsible for the over development that we are all so concerned about. The set backs that were established in our neighborhoods long ago are being disregarded. Variances are common today. If you want to preserve your neighborhoods, beware of the builders and x Nextdoor for iOS Faster, easier, and free! Open < TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK FEBRUARY 20, 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. B 1 2 Description of Material Meeting date on the January 30, 2018, City Council meeting minutes was corrected from February 30 to January 30 Emails from: Juan Croucier; Kurt Shewfelt; Laura and Lew Holzman; Madeline Ryan Correction to Attachment A Project Name **PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, February 19, 2018**. Respectfully submitted, W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180220 additions revisions to agenda.doc CALL TO ORDER: DRAFT MINUTES RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY JANUARY 30, 2018 A Special meeting of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council was called to order by Mayor Brooks at 6:08 P.M. at Fred Hesse Community Park, Fireside Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file. City Council roll call was answered as follows: PRESENT: Alegria, Cruikshank, Dyda, Duhovic, and Mayor Brooks ABSENT: None Also present were Doug Willmore, City Manager and Emily Colborn, City Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENTS: City Clerk Colborn reported that there were no requests to speak. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. Interview Applicants for the Planning Commission. Council Members interviewed the following applicants for the Planning Commission: Evan R. Cole; Maureen Dowd; Hany Francis; David Jankowski; Tae-Yoon Kim; Allan Ku; Jeanne Lacombe; Naresh Nakra; Stephen Perestam; Lan Saadatnejadi; Mathew Vitalich. No action was taken. Mayor Brooks called for a brief recess at 7:06 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 7:14 P.M. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS ANNOUNCED: City Attorney Aleshire announced the items to be discussed in Closed Session. 1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION GC 54957 Title: City Attorney (Specialty position) 2. POTENTIAL LITIGATION AGAINST THE CITY GC 54956.9(d)(2) and (e)(3) ... DRAFT -City Council Minutes B Special Meeting January 30, 2018 Page 1 of 3 • , From: Sent: To: Subject: Octavio Silva Monday, February 19, 2018 5:22 PM CityClerk FW: 27591 PV Drive East Late Correspondence for Item No. 1. Thank you, Octavio From: Juan Croucier [mailto:jcroucier@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 4:44 PM :nn Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: 27591 PV Drive East Hi Octavio, I'm a longtime resident of RPV. I am opposed to the building of two homes on the lot located at 27591 PV Drive East. You are aware of all the new housing that has recently been built at the golf course and surrounding areas. Traffic is bad enough to say nothing of the bicycle issue and the laws that were implemented long ago are in place specifically to prevent over building in Palos Verdes. Thank you, . . www.1uancrouc1er.com This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Thank you. I 1 From: Octavio Silva Sent: To: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 7:52 AM CityClerk Subject: FW: 27581 PV Drive East Mansion Development Late Correspondence for Item No. 1. Thank you, Octavio Silva From: Kurt & Jeralee Shewfelt [mailto:shewfekjl@cox.net] Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 6:15 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: 27581 PV Drive East Mansion Development Hello Octavio, My name is Kurt Shewfelt and I have been a resident of Larga Vista, on Estribo Drive, for over 20 years. I love the rural setting of our community and surrounding area. Recently, I have experienced encroachment by a neighbor, nice as she is, where a large pergola-style patio was erected that looks like an observation tower over my backyard. She has asked me to help pay for a new fence, only 8 years after I supported the last one, to restore my privacy. Needless to say, I'm not interested in paying for another fence, and would rather incur cost to plant foliage to restore privacy. This is why I am not in favor of the subject development. This is a rural, equestrian community. The "mansionification" of the PV Drive East corridor is something my family does not want to see. Look what it's done to Manhattan Beach -monstrous homes on small lots that are an eyesore, in my opinion, and a green light for others to develop in similar fashion. Please maintain the appeal that brought me and my family to the Palos Verdes Peninsula. My grandparents lived here when the Peninsula was just beginning. They lived up toward Miraleste. I used to stay with them in the 60s, and having grown up in the heart of Los Angeles, I thought I was on the edge of the world when I came here, seeing skunks, racoons and squirrels for the first time. Approving the development of this home will be the beginning of the end for what so many people, if not the majority, value in the PV Drive East corridor of the Palos Verdes community. Thank you for your time, Kurt Shewfelt 2232 Estribo Drive 1 From: Octavio Silva Sent: To: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 3:02 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: Parcel at 27581 PV Dr East Late Correspondence for Item No. 1. Thank you, Octavio From: lauraholzman@aol.com [mailto:lauraholzman@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 3:01 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Parcel at 27581 PV Dr East Dear Mr. Silva, We are writing to express our disapproval of the proposed building at 27581 PV Dr East. We feel this project is excessive for the lot size. Sincerely, Laura & Lew Holzman 27890 Palos Verdes Drive East RPV 310.832-7445 1 I From: Octavio Silva Sent: To: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 3:04 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 -27581 Palos Verdes Drive East Redevelopment Late Correspondence for Item No. 1 Thanks Octavio From: Madeline Ryan [mailto:pvpasofino@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 3:03 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fw: P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 -27581 Palos Verdes Drive East Redevelopment Hello Octavio -the following is a letter re the subject development. I don't know if you received this, as another individual told me he did not, so I am sending again in hopes that it will at least be part of the 'late correspondence'. Appreciate your attentiveness to this. "May the Trails be with you ... " Madeline -----Forwarded Message ----- From: Madeline Ryan <pvpasofino@yahoo.com> To: Octavio Silva <octavios@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <cc@rpvca.gov> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 10:36 AM Subject: P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 -27581 Palos Verdes Drive East Redevelopment Hello Octavio How does Staff affirm neighborhood compatibility of this project, when, to my knowledge, there isn't another project like this anywhere in the immediate area, maybe not even in RPV? The Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook talks about balancing "residential development with preservation of rural and semi-rural character of the City" and is in the 'Q' Zone of RPV, one of four 'Q' Zones in the City, so we claim the rural, semi-rural character and atmosphere your policy states. I just don't see how this project is compatible in keeping with that character. What this project does is change the character from semi-rural, single family residences to a multiple family duplex/compound. Since the development is pushed to the center of the parcel, there appears to still be adequate areas to the east for the keeping of large, domestic animals, that hopefully, would meet the City's criteria for same. If it does not, then that would be another reason to deny this project, based on keeping with the City's Neighborhood Compatibility policy. 1 Because of variances needed to complete this project, diminishing views or loss of views of neighbors, resulting in loss of home value, and the change to our semi-rural atmosphere, why should this project be approved? When projects such as this get approved, the changes to the area are obvious and these changes are injurious to all residents of RPV and its neighboring city, Rolling Hills Estates. I sincerely hope that the City Council looks to the future and decides this project based on what they want our future city to look like. Thank you, Madeline Ryan 28328 Palos Verdes Drive East Rancho Palos Verdes "May the Trails be with you ... " Madeline 2 Project: CrrYOF l l ~ ...... ' "-}RANCHO FALOS VEJ~DES 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Rancho Portuguese Bend Feasibility Study Project Change Order# 2 Attention: John Dodge Daniel B. Stevens & Associates, Inc. 3150 Bristol Street, Suite 210 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Description I Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 Respond to public comments on the update to the Portuguese Bend Feasibility Study. 2 Conduct a community workshop to review comments received specific to the update to the Portuguese 1.0 I 34,500.00 I LS Bend Feasibility Study. 3 Update the Feasibility Study. 4 Develop a presentation discussing the abovefor and attend a City Council meeting. Original Contract Value Total Value of all Previous Change Orders Total Revised Contract Sum Prior to this Change Order Value of this Change Order New Contract Sum Change in Contract Days Revised Contract Completion Date Accepted: Daniel B. Stevens & Associates, lnc.LH Woods & Sons By President Date:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Authorized: Rancho Palos Verdes By Director of Public Works Date:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Total 34,587.00 34,587.00 123,200.00 43,800.00 167,000.00 34,587.00 201,587.00 0 6/30/2018 A-1 ~- TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RA.NCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ACTING CITY CLERK FEBRUARY 19, 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, February 20, 2018 City Council meeting: Item No. Closed Session Item No. 1 Study Session G H 1 2 Description of Material Email from Tracy Burns Email from SUNSHINE Update from Senior Administrative Analyst Fox Email exchange between Community Development Director Mihranian and April Sandell Emails from: Chris Walia; Lulu Bryant; Gail Schirm; Rhoanne Washington; Edna Wagreich; Madeline Ryan; Edith Tucker Email from Eva Cicoria Respectfully submitted, W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180220 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc From: Sent: To: Teresa Takaoka Monday, February 19, 2018 7:38 AM Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: RPV -Campbell Legal Strategy Re Records Requests and P&P Violations Late corr From: Tracy Burns [mailto:akamomma@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 7:47 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Subject: RPV -Campbell Legal Strategy Re Records Requests and P&P Violations Hello All, Alshire would need to be consulted as I am not a lawyer, but I've been thinking .... 1. Maybe Campbell is having difficulty complying with the records request because he is technologically inept (this is highly unlikely though). A good faith offer by the CC to Campbell to offer the assistance of the City's IT person or an outside contractor to help retrieve the items listed in both records requests (by Green Hills and Mike Huang) wouldn't hurt. When Campbell refuses or fails to be available by a certain date, it'll mean for sure he does not wish to comply and/or he has something to hide. Additionally, it'll show that the city made every reasonable effort to comply with the records request. 2. The city issues a cease and desist letter to Campbell re use of the title, logo, etc. We already know he won't comply, because even after Mike's letter he is still doing his shady shenanigans. His recent letter TO the city using the city logo and his FORMER title with (ret.) is a prime example and his "Rancho Palos Verdes Affairs Newsletter" emailed out 2/6/18 to an undisclosed list is another. 3. Sooooo, ifl were the city I would go for an injunction after he refuses the offer of assistance - which he will. Depending on the type of injunction there is a right to discovery and if he fails to comply then there can be financial penalties. I doubt Campbell has enough money to cover legal fees, the penalties and his RPV rental mailbox for his "official" correspondence. Campbell is already costing the city a lot of money. It would be better spent on a killer offense instead of a constant defense and letter writing campaign -IF Alshire agrees this is legally sound. Sincerely, Tracy Bums 1 From: "SUNSHINE" <sunshinerpv@aol.com> To: "Kit Fox" <KitF@rpvca.gov>, "CC" <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: RE: RPV City Council "Study Session" protocol Hi Kit, Madam Mayor, Council Members and everybody who gets to peek, Here in RPV they call them "Public Workshops". Have you not noticed that the "consensus" after several workshops on, for example, Ladera Linda and the PB landslide are just the same as the original proposal? Whatever happened to the public's suggestions about including other goals which could be accommodated at the same time and place? Mmmmm, like traffic safety, low maintenance trails and off-road emergency connections. .. .S STupy <;c,s~ION THE DElPHI TECHNIQUE Oevelo~ed o~ tne RAND Cor~oration as a Cold War mind control tecnni~ue, Delrni is used to cnannel a ~rour oi reorle to accert a roint of view tnat is imrosed on tnem wnile convincin~ tnem tnat it was tneir idea. In tne m~s and '~~s, it was used to conv·1nce land owners oi tne merits or accertin~ General Plan mars. Delrni can oe used on an~ wour, from just one rerson to tne entire world. Trained facilitators rresent a ran~e or cnoices to a ~rour out nave tailored tnem to direct tne outcome. Tnis is most often aone in ruolic meetin~s, called V1sionin~ meetin~s.' rut on 01 ~our cit1 or councy to ~et ~our o~inion on Your Town i~Wor WJo. Mone1 lor tnese rrowams often comes from iederal a~encies (memoers of tne President's Council on Sustainaole Develorment) in tne form oi ~rants to 1our local ~overnment. Tne meetin~s are advertised as an or~ortunit1 for ~ou to ~ive 1our in~ut to an excitin~ new rlan lor tne .. redesi~n ol ~our cicy center !or tne Mure. You'll usual!~ see it as a s~mc rlan !or a reoevelorment rroject or a regional transrortauon rlan tnat involves nousin~ ano land use restnctions. Delrni is used in scnool ooaro meetin~s, in trainin~s, at nei~noornooo association meetin~s, and otner r1aces wnere tne or~anizers want to ~ive tne arrearance tnat tne~ nave listenea to communicy orinion and incorrorateo it into fueir rlan. B1 tne wa~, ~ou'll never near tne woro 'Oelrni'-tne~ will never acKnowled~e tnat tne1're ooin~ it. Tne Ke1 tnin~ lo ~now aoou1 fuis is 1na1 ol course ~ou nave no inrut. Onl1 comments and ooservations fuat surrort 1ne rre·arrroved rlan ~II oe surrorted. ~I otners ~II oo wrmen on a oi~ ~ad or rarer ana oiscaroed later. Tne illusion oi ruolic ou~·in is all tnat is neeoed. Tne or~anizers can later roint to tne !act tnat tne~ neld a ruolic meetin~, a certain numoer or residents a~ended, ruolic comment was ta~en, and tne communit~ arrroved tne rlan. Tne iacilitator is often a rnvate consultant wno nas oeen rrolessionall~ tra·1ned in runnin~ and mana~·1n~ a meetin~. Tnis consultant nas oeen n·1red o~ ~our cit~ to iu!Till tne re~uirement tnat tne rro~ct nas oeen seen and surrorted o~ its cif1zens .. :1rs . YOUR rlan. Ii tne ~roject is a controversiru one tne cit~ ma1 nave rut out tne call for non·rrofll ~rours, nei~noornooo associations, cicy ooards and commissions, and cicy emrlo~ees to sena memoers lo seed tne audience ana oulnumoer rotential orronents. Tnis is war. On tnose iew occasions wnen tne majorit~ or tne attendees ooject to tne rlanned outcome, tne facilitator will close tne meetin~ and rescneaule it for anolner lime· ana rlace. You are exreriencin~ tne new consensus. In a message dated 2/14/2 018 5:04 :1 1 PM Pacific Standard Time, KitF @ rpvca.gov writes: Hi SUNSHINE: The description of the Delphi Technique that you mentioned was not attached to your email. Kit Fox, AICP Cit\) of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544~5226 kit£@rpvca.5ov From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com ] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 4:08 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca .gov > Subject: RPV City Council "Study Session" protocol MEMO From SUNSHINE TO: RPV Mayor and City Council RE: Requesting Study Session Topics I have a problem with this Policy which I found on your Agenda for February 20, 2018. The primary purpose of the Study Session is to provide an opportun ity for the Council members to interact freely and informally, ask questions and discuss policy items that are listed on the agenda for that specific Study Session . The City Council will also provide direction to Staff regarding upcoming agenda items and tentative agendas, including prioritization of agenda items that are listed on the agenda for that specific study session. No action shall be taken during any Study Sess ion unless the agenda so prov ides . There are so many things going on which are not being coordinated among Staff and need some macromanagement from Council. Although Council receives a lot of correspondence, you never get the opportunity to discuss the policies which are keeping the public bouncing from pillar to post. What has to be done in order for any or all of the following "discussions" to appear on your Study Session Agenda so that you can take an "action" should a majority of you be inclined to do so? 1. Consider the Delphi Technique and decide whether or not it is appropriate to continue using it at future Public Workshops. (See attached description.) 2. Consider the lack of a city-wide signage program and decide whether or not roadways, parks, trails and the PV Preserve should present a consistent "vision". 3. Consider asking Staff to produce an up-to-date General Plan Land Use Map prior to the Council's consideration of any proposed changes/amendments. 4. Consider some sort of quantitative bench mark as to how much of the PB landslide abatement engineered solutions should be compromised in order to mitigate "habitat damage". 5. Consider some sort of more specific definition of the phrase "The City shall provide guidance" in the context of implementing the Conceptual Trails Plan. These are the most pressing of my global concerns/frustrations. I have bunches more. However, many of these others will be resolved based on a clear direction from Council as to the above five. I will be happy to provide specific examples of what is not being done in the public's best interests under Staff's current MO and Budget. The real issue is what you can do about it. MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS KIT FOX, AICP, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYSTc@j FEBRUARY 19, 2018 LATE CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING LETTER TO STATE LANDS COMMISSION REGARDING PALOS VERDES REEF RESTORATION PROJECT (FEBRUARY 20, 2018 -AGENDA ITEM 'G') On February 13, 2018, the State Lands Commission (SLC) released the "Response to Comments" (Appendix D) for the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that has been prepared for the Palos Verdes Reef Restoration Project (view on the SLC website at http://slc.ca.gov/lnfo/Reports/PalosVerdes/AppD.pdf). This includes responses to the City's previous comments of April 4, 2017, which are reiterated in the draft letter presented to the City Council for its consideration on February 20, 2018. With respect to the City's concern that the restored reef would be quickly covered by silt from the toe of the active Portuguese Bend Landslide, the following response is offered: This reef was designed to be resilient against the ongoing sedimentation caused by the Portuguese Bend Landslide by maximizing the amount of vertical relief of the reef itself. Natural high-relief reef patches in the area have persisted and remain very productive because the rocks are well above the sediment. The project specifically incorporates sedimentation into the design. [Response No. 35. p. 7] With respect to the City's concern that the restored reef would be too close to the DDT- and PCB-laden sediments in the Santa Catalina Channel, the following response is offered: Resuspension of contaminated sediment was a major consideration when evaluating alternatives for this project. The current understanding is that any additional contamination from re-suspended sediment would be extremely minor for two important reasons. First, the reef will be constructed on a shallow layer of sand that is covering a historic /ow-relief reef. Thus, there is very little sediment that could be disturbed. Second, and perhaps more important, is that the actual concentrations of DDT compounds and PCBs in the project area are very low when compared with the sediments farther offshore and closer to the White's Point outfall, and comparable to other nearshore areas in southern California. The amount t1. Late Correspondence for Palos Verdes Reef Restoration Project February 19, 2018 Page 2 of DDT in the sediment is at the ambient levels consistent with the rest of the nearshore habitats in the Southern California Bight, and reef construction will not expose any buried pollutants that are not currently available to the ecosystem. [Response No. 62, p. 11] As of February 19, 2018, the SLC meeting agenda had been posted on the SLC website, at http://slc.ca:gQy/Meetings/02-27-18/Agenda.htm, but the agenda report for the Palos Verdes Reef Restoration Project (Section VII, Item 89) was not yet available for review. M:\Legislative lssues\Montrose Settlements Restoration Prograrn\20180219_ CC_LateCorrespondence.docx From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Friday, February 16, 2018 8:02 AM Nathan Zweizig FW: February 20, 2018 City Council Agenda I Consent Calendar Item H From: April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 9:05 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Edward Mendoza <eddie41oans@att.net>; Jeanne Lacombe <chateau4us@att.net> Subject: Re: February 20, 2018 City Council Agenda I Consent Calendar Item H Ara, Given your well crafted response, I'm done wasting my time as well as yours. Please know, I mean that in the nicest way possible. Going forward, I believe a few property owners are aware enough to protect their own interests. I accept that most others simply see that Coco's moved out and Chase is moving in. April On Feb 14, 2018, at 4:18 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote: April, I, as well as the Planning Commission, understood your concerns expressed at the January 23rd meeting regarding the aging infrastructure along Western Avenue and its potential impacts to the surrounding area as it relates to the Chase bank project. As mentioned at the meeting, the approved project includes conditions (similar to all development projects in the City) that require a comprehensive drainage review prior to issuing any construction permits. Typically, the City requires that the drainage run-off entering the City's storm drains do not exceed the pre-construction levels. This is intended to minimize stress on the existing infrastructure. 1 H. In regards to Agenda Item No. H, this is a change order request to allow the contractor to complete the storm drain work in various areas of the City, including Western Avenue near Caddington, due to changing site conditions. One last thing, the Director is not authorized to change Conditions of Approval for a Conditional Use Permit, unless it is interpreted as a minor modification, and in that case, all interested parties including the final deciding party are given notice of the Director's decision. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director crrvoF I,) kN{'l ·10 D' i ('\.t" \ AE·· f'1[JES' V·\ ~.A f t \L.,J(.) \J ::. '\ •. . 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? contains infomkltion belonqin9 to the City of P;mcho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from 1mmnFmnn is intended on!y for use of the individual or entity narnecL Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly received this email in error, or are nut an inl('1Kled recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for yOLff assistance From: April Sandell [mailto:hv.Y!?s.g,<;@_c;Q;:s,,ngJ] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 11:57 AM To: PC <~vca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Edward Mendoza <edQ.Le4Jgg.11s(f1latt,pet>; Jeanne Lacombe <chateau4us@att.net> Subject: February 20, 2018 City Council Agenda I Consent Calendar Item H Dear Commissioner James, As you may recall, the PC approved the CHASE proposed plans. I spoke in opposition to the CHASE project raising supporting documents that contained language which I reasonably connected the CHASE proposal to the potential redo of the entire Westmont shopping center including drainage infrastructure repairs/replacement and improvements. You did not see it as I did and mentioned your confusion. With all due respect, you may find the subject Item H enlightening as well as helpful in the future. 2 As you are aware, the Conditional Use Permits allows changes (evolves) subject only to the planning director's approval. ( ie a living document.) So, given the drainage issues were not earlier viewed as part of the CHASE plans, drainage systems are now on the agenda Feb. 20th. The City/Caltrans cooperative agreement (in particular, those paragraph's 24 and 25) underscore my ongoing concerns for myself and my neighbors, including those in property owners in and around the Strathmore area. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, April L. Sandell Note: I don't have Glen Cornell's email so cc Jeanne. 3 From: Sent: To: Subject: Octavio Silva Wednesday, February 14, 2018 10:59 AM CityClerk FW: Nilay Patel New Residence Construction Late correspondence for Item No. 1 (City Council Meeting on Feb. 20th). Thank you, Octavio Silva -----Original Message----- From: Chris Walia [mailto:bxtreme112@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 4:20 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Nilay Patel New Residence Construction Hi Octavio, Our family had 3 homes on the Palos Verdes peninsula and have lived here for more than 40 years. We APPROVE the Patel family residence! Best, Chris Walia 1 /. From: Octavio Silva Sent: To: Thursday, February 15, 2018 1:55 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: development on PV Dr. Late correspondence for Appeal request at 27581 PVDE (Item No. 1) From: Lulu Bryant [mailto:lulu@arteasecolors.com] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 1:10 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: development on PV Dr. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS HOUSE TO BE BUILT! IT'S TOO BIG AND UNSIGHTLY FOR OUR RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD! HOW COULD YOU ALLOW THIS????? Lulu Bryant 1 /. From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Octavio Silva Thursday, February 15, 2018 1:59 PM CityClerk FW: 27581 PV Dr E Follow up Completed Late correspondence for Appeal Request at 27581 PVDE (Item No. l.}. Thanks Octavio From: Gail Schirm [mailto:gschirm@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 1:51 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: 27581 PV Dr E I could not imagine 2 large homes on the 1 acre lot! Currently, that is an acceptable size lot for this area, and the single home should be a reasonable size as well. No McMansions please. Its not appropriate for the area, the rural feel and next they will be wanting to eliminate the horses because of the smells! This is not Manhattan Beach!!! Gail's !Pad 1 I. From: Sent: To: Octavio Silva Monday, February 19, 2018 7:41 AM CityClerk Subject: FW: objection Late correspondence for Item No. 1. Thanks Octavio From: Rhoanne [mailto:rhoanne@cox.net] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 6:17 AM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: objection PS forgot to mention subdividing to put two separate houses on the lot would also set a terrible president for our city please be our advocate and prevent urbanization Begin forwarded message: From: Rhoanne <rhoanne@cox.net> Subject: objection Date: February 15, 2018 at 8:07:04 PM PST To: OctavioS@rpvca_,_gov Mr Silva, I live off PV Drive East and would like to file an objection to the development of# 27581 which is on the planner for 2/20. I am not able to attend the hearing, so I'm writing. Please do not approve the building of McMansion type houses in our semi rural neighborhoods! We have houses that are ranch style and fit our environment. The new houses that are being proposed will set a president for the future and destroy the reason we all want to live here. I have been a resident since 1964 and have seen so much development. Please protect what's left of our beautiful peninsula and the very qualities that make it so desirable. Thank you for your consideration, Rhoanne Washington 3 Cayuse Ln RPV 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Octavio Silva Thursday, February 15, 2018 9:11 PM CityClerk FW: PV Drive E New Houses Late Correspondence for Appeal request at 27581 PVDE. Item No. 1 From: Edna Wagreich [mailto:ewagreich@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 7:25 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: PV Drive E New Houses Dear Mr. Silva, As a homeowner on the Harbor Sight community, I am appalled that such a massive construction is even considered. Not only will these houses look out of place, if they are built, more people will start building bigger and bigger houses and the planning commissioner will not be able to deny permits. In which grounds would you be able to deny someone else adding or building a bigger house? Please preserve our rural environment. Respectfully, Edna Wagreich 310-447-2264 1 !. From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Friday, February 16, 2018 11:14 AM Nathan Zweizig FW: P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 -27581 Palos Verdes Drive East Redevelopment From: Madeline Ryan [mailto:pvpasofino@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 10:37 AM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 -27581 Palos Verdes Drive East Redevelopment Hello Octavio How does Staff affirm neighborhood compatibility of this project, when, to my knowledge, there isn't another project like this anywhere in the immediate area, maybe not even in RPV? The Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook talks about balancing "residential development with preservation of rural and semi-rural character of the City" and is in the 'Q' Zone of RPV, one of four 'Q' Zones in the City, so we claim the rural, semi-rural character and atmosphere your policy states. I just don't see how this project is compatible in keeping with that character. What this project does is change the character from semi-rural, single family residences to a multiple family duplex/compound. Since the development is pushed to the center of the parcel, there appears to still be adequate areas to the east for the keeping of large, domestic animals, that hopefully, would meet the City's criteria for same. If it does not, then that would be another reason to deny this project, based on keeping with the City's Neighborhood Compatibility policy. Because of variances needed to complete this project, diminishing views or loss of views of neighbors, resulting in loss of home value, and the change to our semi-rural atmosphere, why should this project be approved? When projects such as this get approved, the changes to the area are obvious and these changes are injurious to all residents of RPV and its neighboring city, Rolling Hills Estates. I sincerely hope that the City Council looks to the future and decides this project based on what they want our future city to look like. Thank you, Madeline Ryan 28328 Palos Verdes Drive East Rancho Palos Verdes 1 /. "May the Trails be with you ... " Madeline 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Octavio Silva Monday, February 19, 2018 7:39 AM CityClerk FW: Development at 27581 PVDRE Late correspondence for Item No. 1. Thank you, Octavio From: Edith Tucker [mailto:tetux@att.net] Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 4:29 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Development at 27581 PVDRE I am opposed to allowing the huge development at the above address. This project would greatly impact the existing atmosphere of the community from equestrian nature to an urban area and would set a precedent for future changes in our area. Please carefully consider the impact on the entire neighborhood. Edith Tucker 314 Carriage Dr. 1 I 2 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 2:01 PM Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: City Council Agendas for Tuesday, February 20, 2018--Regular Business Item 2 Attachments: PB Landslide Abatement -questions for the consultants staff and council final corrected.pdf From: Eva Cicoria [mailto:cicoriae@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 1:12 PM To: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: City Council Agendas for Tuesday, February 20, 2018--Regular Business Item 2 Hi Doug and Elias, Regarding the City Council Agenda and Staff Report to consider modifying the scope of service and contract sum for the Daniel B. Stephens & Associates firm, I was surprised not to see as attachments the questions and comments submitted by the public. One question that I have when thinking about whether or not to support the Staff's recommendation is the extent to which we are likely to get much in the way of new information from the consultants without further, current hydrologic and other study of the PBLC. If we anticipate that much of the time spent by the consultants under the proposed contract modification will be reviewing and organizing the questions and comments and then responding to them with something to the effect that the questions and comments are beyond the scope of the Feasibility Study update and would require further testing, then it seems to me that we won't get much value from the added expenditure at this time. On the other hand, perhaps there are questions for which the consultants have more information that they can provide at this time. The only way to really get some sense of that is to have access to the questions. Please consider providing them to the public in advance of the City Council meeting. I've appended below and attached my husband's and my correspondence of February 2 as a start, for inclusion in late correspondence on this item. By the way, it seems to me that an effort has been made to get the City Council agendas and related staff reports out a little earlier in the week than they have been historically and that is much appreciated! Eva Cicoria From: Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com> To: cityclerk@rpvca.gov Cc: cc@rpvca.gov Bee: cicoriae@aol.com Subject: Portuguese Bend Landslide Feasibility Study Related Questions Date: Fri, Feb 2, 2018 1:45 pm Attachments: PB Landslide Abatement -questions for the consultants staff and council final.pdf (1662K) Dear Ms. Takaoka, 1 We wish to thank Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, Council Members Alegria, Cruikshank and Dyda, and the Rancho Palos Verdes City Staff for the opportunity to provide additional questions to City Staff and the engineering consultants at Daniel B. Stephens & Associates regarding the Draft Portuguese Bend Landslide Feasibility Study dated December 22, 2017. We are submitting the questions attached to this email for and on behalf of each of the 85 people and one group whose names appear at the end of the question set. We sought to compile a comprehensive list of questions. We find today, however, that members of the public have still more questions than are included in the attachment. We have simply run out of time to continue to add to the list. There may be some overlap among questions, and we request that in such cases City Staff and its consultants provide answers that address all aspects of the aggregate of such overlapping questions, not summary answers to groups of similar questions. Please share our submission with the Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee, so that they, too, may consider our questions. Thank you for your diligent attention to this significant and important matter. Kindly acknowledge receipt of this submission. Eva Cicoria and Ken Swenson Rancho Palos Verdes 2 Questions Following Up to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Meeting of 1/16/18 Re: Draft Portuguese Bend Landslide Feasibility Study Table of Contents Legend ....................................................................................................................... 1 ''Solution'' -Specific Questions ................................................................................. 2 Cost-Related Questions ........................................................................................... 5 Hydrology-and Geology-Related Questions ......................................................... 6 Nature-Related Questions ....................................................................................... 9 Process-Related Questions .................................................................................... 12 Other Questions ...................................................................................................... 13 Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 14 Supporters of These Question Submissions to Date (2/2/18) ............................. 15 Legend CC=Rancho Palos Verdes City Council CSS=Coastal Sage Scrub City=City of Rancho Palos Verdes FS=Feasibility Study Update Draft of 12/22/17 NCCP=Natural Communities Conservation Plan PBLC=Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex PBR=Portuguese Bend Reserve PVDS=Palos Verdes Dr. South RPV=City of Rancho Palos Verdes SR=RPV Staff Report for CC meeting of 1/16/18 "Solution "-Specific Questions 1. Which of the project proposals being floated in the FS present the greatest risk of triggering another landslide during construction? Is it not the case that 1950s infill done in the PBLC area is thought to have been, at minimum, a contributing factor to the 1956 landslide? How much new fill would be involved in the different project proposals? 2. Mr. Cullen explained that the typical gradients they work on are 0.01 to 0.00001. The area under consideration has a 0.10 or 10% grade. What hazards could be expected working with such steep terrain? 3. Have homes in Rolling Hills located near these three canyons been examined for risk of de-stabilization if the project proceeds? 4. Are there flexible materials now available that could be substituted for existing materials used on 1) the road, 2) the sewer pipe along PVDS, 3) the extraction and monitoring wells, 4) the corrugated pipe installed in past years to channel water in the lower reaches toward the ocean, in each case which would reduce the likelihood of them being torn apart by land movement? 5. If septic tanks account for a certain percentage of the groundwater and septic tank conversion is the proposal with the least impact on nature, then will that be prioritized first? 6. Would pipes from a centralized sewer system in Rolling Hills be routed to avoid the Preserve? 7. Why not give full effort to dewatering instead of installing such systems and then letting them go? If it worked for Abalone Cove, if it worked for PBR in the past, why not try it ahead of other solutions? Even ifthe wells shear over time, would it not be cheaper and less invasive to drill them again and over time they should stop shearing as land movement slows? 8. What subsurface water (amount and percentage) would the proposed "horizontal" drains be expected to drain and what water would not be expected to be drained by them? What would happen to the water that would not be expected to drain? 9. Is there a certain amount of water or percentage of water saturation that would be expected to have a nominal effect on land movement and therefore would be acceptable under the proposed solutions? 2 1 O.How will dewatering wells function with the horizontal drains? Will drainage be tunneled or established under PVDS? How will the tunneling and drains under the road affect the long-term stability of the road when the land does move? 11.From the plan view of the placement of the horizontal drains (FS Figure 14), it is not clear what subsurface water levels the horizontal drains could passively drain. (An elevation view would be useful.) Furthermore, portions of the rupture surface appear to be at a zero-elevation contour line (Geotechnical Figure 3). This would imply that the horizontal drains will not drain water passively from this area. Please clarify. 12. Where has the sealing of surface fractures with cement been done previously in an area with similar land movement? 13. What will happen to the clumps of concrete filling the fissures when/if the land moves? 14.The consultants' presentation to CC (at about 2:32) indicates that the fill substance for the fissures doesn't have to be cement, it could be soil. Is there soil in some places in the City land south of the Preserve that has been deposited by man during prior remediation attempts, that could be used as fill for the fissures or are the consultants talking about introducing foreign soil? If the latter, does that have any risks associated with it? Related, foreign soil was brought in to re-grade Peppertree Tr. after last year's rains. Are there any risks associated with that? 15 .Explain the differences between the Work Areas Conceptual Design vs. the Drainage Routing graphics. The former shows the Portuguese Cyn Channel extending past the Central Channel to PVDS and the ocean discharge, whereas the Drainage Routing graphic shows drainage for Portuguese Cyn being routed to the Central Channel only. 16. Where has the geo-textile fabric lining and channelization of canyons been done previously in an area with similar features as in PBR? 17.What would the installation process be for geo-textiles where canyon walls are deep or steep-sided? 18.How much flex is there in the geo-textile fabric proposed to line the canyons and other proposed channels, i.e., when the land moves one foot, what happens to that fabric? Two feet? 3 19. Will plant roots perforate the geo-textile fabric, or work through seams or overlaps, and in doing so impact the fabric's effectiveness? 20.If, over time, the geo-textile fabric tears or separates, does the work need to be redone? How would someone even know? 21.The FS at p. 53 says that "some engineering components would also be needed in mid-canyon high flow or flow convergence areas such as velocity dissipation structures, flow control channeling .... " What are these additional engineering components? Are any of those engineering components to be made of concrete? And approximately what dimensions are they likely to be? How would they be installed? 22. What "stream restoration program" is contemplated in the reference on p. 63 of the FS? 23 .How do the consultants envision getting construction equipment and hauling equipment to and from each of the canyons they propose to channelize? 24. If 65 feet is the minimum width of the canyon lining and channelization is based on a 100-year flood event (per the SR), what is the maximum width that will be permitted/required? 25.How much work area is needed adjacent to the geo-textile project to support the work? How much staging area is needed for the geo-textile work? How much area is needed for spoils from the geo-textile work? 26.How do consultants propose to create a 65 foot-wide channel down each of these canyons which, in some places are currently 5-10 feet wide but have steep sides--will the canyons be filled in places in order to widen them? 27 .Explain further how planting is proposed in the rip rap and, in particular, how the sacs would support large native plants with deep roots. 28.How do consultants propose to analyze the trade-offs between removing vegetation with deep root systems that help to control erosion in order to channelize the canyons vs. retaining that vegetation to control erosion and allowing water to flow through the canyons naturally? 29 .Doesn't the central channel operate at cross purpose to the goal of sending the water down the canyons to the ocean as quickly and directly as possible? 30.Why does the central channel send most of the water, including water from Portuguese Cyn, into the area of suspected subterranean pooled water, already deemed by the consultants to be a major problem area? 4 31. The CC presentation by the consultants (at about 2:28) indicates that Portuguese Cyn pretty much flows to the ocean. The pipe going under PVDS has apparently sunk some. How does the consultant justify altering the canyon to the extreme extent proposed if it is functioning fairly well currently except at the point where it reaches PVDS? Cost-Related Questions 1. Provide a breakdown of the spend on PVDS, sewer and other expenses since the City's incorporation in 1973. What was the money spent on, and what jurisdiction/agency spent it? 2. What would it cost and how long would it take to implement the measures of 1984, which seemed to be fairly effective and with significantly lighter environmental impacts than those currently proposed in the FS? What would it cost to properly maintain them, both monetarily and environmentally? 3. Per Mr. Cullen, ground water wells are critical to understanding the geology and hydrology of the landscape. Over the past years, money has been invested in placement of some 20 water wells, probably more, but the data is lacking. The fact that money was spent on water wells and then not monitored or kept in repair does not give taxpayers confidence that this project will be successful or be monitored and maintained. Why should taxpayers believe that this time will be any different? 4. The consultants indicate that "a handful" of data would be needed before designing a system, yet the data gaps seem to be extensive. Please separate the data gap costs from the pilot testing costs provided in the slide near the end of the consultants' presentation "Order of Magnitude Costs". 5. Regarding pilot testing, at what point would the determination be made that the plan isn't working and it should be scrapped, vs. it should be modified at X cost? Is the idea to go forward at all costs once we start down that road? 6. The FS says at p. 72 that "ultimately, additional areas in the adjacent watersheds could also be lined, such as Eastern Altamira Cyn or Lower Klondike Cyn where stormwater continues to infiltrate to groundwater in the vicinity of the project area." What are the projected additional monetary and environmental costs of these measures and how and when will the consultants determine whether they are "necessary"? 5 7. Will RPV pay for updated biologic surveys and how much will that add to the cost? 8. Do the costs of the project take into account the costs for work in Rolling Hills? 9. Do the costs of the project take into account all environmental mitigation, including for Rolling Hills? 10. Will RPV pay for Rolling Hills septic to be converted to sewer? 11.If public debt is proposed for any of the project costs, whether in RPV or Rolling Hills, will a public vote be required? What happens ifthe public debt is not approved? Are the costs of such an election included in the project costs? 12. What would be estimated to be the interest costs of any public debt required to fund the project? Provide backup documentation for the calculation of probable interest costs. 13.If the canyon channelization and lining go forward, will RPV compensate donors who have given their hard-earned money trusting that the land would be protected and preserved in perpetuity? 14.Has exposure to liability to homeowners, including homeowners in Rolling Hills, been taken into consideration if the project triggers slope failure? 15.When will the public see a rigorous return-on-investment analysis? Hydrology-and Geology-Related Questions 1. Why did the FS not include a "complete characterization of the hydrology of the area", since this was a top priority of the public who attended the Landslide Subcommittee meetings? 2. How will the consultants address the data gaps, specifically addressing data from existing wells, piezometers in the streams, rainfall gauges, and multiple years of data? 3. What are the highest-priority data needs to determine the most feasible, cost effective, and least-damaging solutions? 4. What is the risk of failure of each proposed remediation solution if a full hydro logic study of the watershed is not conducted and the existing data gaps are not addressed? 6 5. Some of the existing landslide abatement infrastructure is in complete disrepair, some is simply not maintained. For example, this culvert between Burma Rd and Rim Tr. has overgrown vegetation blocking water flow. It seems that if the damaged infrastructure is not repaired, hydro logic data may be skewed as water runoff and pooling is affected, thus it makes sense to postpone any future hydrologic studies until the existing damaged infrastructure is cleaned up and repaired or replaced. Has the existing infrastructure been surveyed to determine what is repairable and what isn't? Considering how long it will take to complete the projects currently contemplated in the FS, doesn't it make sense to fix what we have at least in the short term? 6. Is it possible to predict (and with what degree of certainty) where the land will flow in the future based on how much and where water will infiltrate the ground? 7. How much water is too much in the watershed? In other words, how much would need to be removed under certain rainfall conditions? And how much is needed to support life in the watershed? 8. Leighton estimated up to 77 acre-feet per year recharge from upslope irrigation. Mr. Cullen said that this is significant and needs further quantification to support a PBLC design. What sources of water are subsumed in "upslope irrigation"? What is the current percentage of groundwater inflow into the PBLC resulting from such irrigation upslope? What percentage is from septic tanks? 7 9. Is there a correlation between the changes in groundwater elevation from well to well and the land movement measurements from one well location to another? 10. Without the results from a hydrologic study for the watershed, that includes data specific to each canyon, what evidence is there to support the statement (in the PBLC Physical Characteristics slide presented by consultants at the CC meeting) that "infiltration of canyon runoff is a source of groundwater recharge" other than the infiltration once that runoff arrives at the lower reaches of PBR? In other words, where is the evidence that any subsurface water flow originating from water running down through the upper canyons has any significant impact on groundwater recharge in the lower reaches of PBR? 11. The consultants' presentation to CC indicated that "100% of storm water from [Paintbrush and Portuguese] canyon flows directly into the head of PBLC." Yet, some of that water currently percolates into the ground and transpires through vegetation in the canyons. Confirm that actually more water from the canyons will flow directly into the head of PBLC with lining and channelization and that actually what is done with the water that comes out of the canyons is going to determine whether or not the water flows into the head of the PBLC or is diverted elsewhere. 12.Explain the "deep" water bearing zone. 13 .In the CC presentation, the consultants indicate ponding in the head of the slide, but the arrow is moving around broadly. Where is the ponding? Is this reference different than the depression in the failure surface? Does the failure surface that drops to sea level extend under PVDS? 14. Where is the depression in the failure surface relative to the one spot that showed 8 feet/year land movement? 15. What is the suspected relationship between the depression in the failure surface and the one spot in the vicinity that showed 8 feet/year land movement? 16.Regarding the Hydrogeology slide shown by the consultants at the CC meeting of 1/16/18 indicating that PBLC water enters the subsurface by different means, what amount of water entry is attributable to each of the different means? 8 17.In the consultants' slide labeled Detailed Analysis--Geotechnical Modeling, the landslide mass is pulled off revealing a brown layer, but it appears that part of the landslide mass is left behind in the area of the pond/the deeper landslide. Is that correct? (about 2:16 on CC video) If the modeling left behind the pond, can it be accurate modeling? 18.How is the variation in land movement explained (1-2 feet in most areas versus 8 feet in one place)? And what is the consultants' proposal for addressing this in particular; for focusing on this area? 19 .Land movement data presented was just for 1 year. What is the movement for other years? And where? Nature-Related Questions 1. Are Portuguese Cyn, Ishibashi Cyn, Paintbrush Cyn and Klondike Cyn all blue-line streams? 2. Why did the FS not include a complete assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposal, since this was a top priority of the public who attended the Landslide Subcommittee meetings? 3. As you look out over PBR from above, you see that much of the CSS cover occurs in the canyons. Portuguese Cyn 9 Ishibashi Cyn Paintbrush Cyn This makes sense, because the higher flat lands were the lands that were farmed in years past, while the canyons were left in their natural state, 10 except for damming created by roads across them. How viable is a preserve for CSS-reliant species ifthe very highest quality CSS is removed? 4. Is there any plan going forward to assess the impact that destroying prime wildlife habitat in these canyons will have on the survivability of wildlife that currently live there and depend on the dense vegetative cover for protection from predators, for den sites, and for forage? 5. What does it mean that the City staff worked with the consultants to make sure alignment of the surface area would avoid any of the identified species? A voiding identified species is not something the City staff is qualified to represent fully to a consultant. A biologist should be the only person representing this kind of information on behalf of the City and in a collaborative process as well as to honor the NCCP, the City would request that a biologist from the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy provide this information to the consultants. 6. Studies have shown us that California gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and mammals are present in the proposed project area. What data is there to demonstrate that the noise and other impacts of heavy equipment such as bulldozers, engines roaring, men shouting, radios blaring--all common to construction sites--will not have an adverse impact on the protected species and other wildlife? 7. What modifications will the consultants and RPV staff make in their FS recommendations to show true prioritization of minimizing impacts on the Preserve? 8. What are the most sensitive areas of the Preserve and how will they be avoided per the NCCP requirements? Please consult PVP Land Conservancy. 9. Per the SR, the NCCP allows 3.3 acres of CSS take within the Preserve for landslide abatement measures. Channelizing upper Portuguese Cyn, Ishibashi Cyn and Paintbrush Cyn alone is estimated to "take" more than 10 acres of CSS. If the City and consultants are truly committed to honoring the NCCP, then why isn't channelizing the canyons rejected as an option as other landslide abatement measures considered were rejected? 10.Ifthe City uses its full allotment of CSS take for utilities and dewatering well maintenance simply to install the project, what is the City's plan for those activities after the projec~ is installed? 11 11.How will the biological values of the area in the PBLC be preserved? 12.In years, what is the estimated timeframe that the proposal would set back the efforts already undertaken and progress already made to ensure the long- term viability and sustainability of the native ecosystem? 13. Who was consulted regarding native plants before the FS proposed uprooting them and planting them in sacs in the channelized canyons? Are consultants aware that some native plant species in the canyons have very extensive root systems, some 30-40 feet deep or greater, which themselves offer stabilizing and transpiration benefits? 14.The FS says at p. 72 that "ultimately, additional areas in the adjacent watersheds could also be lined, such as Eastern Altamira Cyn or Lower Klondike Cyn where storm water continues to infiltrate to groundwater in the vicinity of the project area." In addition, in the consultants' presentation, Klondike Cyn was mentioned and we're told that it should be controlled eventually. The consultants acknowledge that there is a lot of CSS in that canyon. Has the take from these canyons been considered in the total take calculations? 15. What inspections have been done in the canyons, if any, and under whose guidance? 16."Take" in Rolling Hills is not mitigated by the NCCP. What mitigation etlorts and permitting will be undertaken with respect to that take? Who will be the lead agency for that permitting? 17. What effect does dewatering have on plant life? Process-Related Questions 1. Conversations with the consultants following the CC meeting suggest that the consultants would benefit from regular input from PVPLC staff and its volunteers. What is the plan going forward to bring in the PVPLC and its volunteers on a regular basis to engage in back-and-forth dialogue with the consultants? 2. Was ACLAD (Abalone Cove Landslide District) consulted for their data and feedback during the FS process? 3. Who is the "environmental expert" on the team; what is his/her background; and what has been his/her contribution? (When the issue was raised last 12 summer, the public was told that there is an environmental expert on the team.) 4. Why doesn't the FS take into account the time frame and feasibility of permitting and various agencies' reviews (other than mentioning there would be constraints) with respect to the myriad project proposals? Other Questions 1. If we have a heavy rain year in the middle of the project when all the habitat has been tom up and nothing yet installed or only partially installed to manage the water flow, what measures will be taken to prevent Palos Verdes Drive South and the Portuguese Bend community becoming "another" Route 101 and Montecito, CA? 2. What measures can be implemented now without further study, such as repairing or replacing existing infrastructure (e.g., corrugated pipes) to direct water off of the lower PBR? 3. What percentage of the PBLC is within the City of Rolling Hills? 4. What support is there from Rolling Hills? 5. What impact have past construction projects had on the land movement, for example, to what extent have Burma Rd., Peppertree Tr., and PVDS dammed the natural flow of water down the canyons to the ocean and how can those projects be re-designed to mitigate the problems? 6. To what extent will existing poor drainage infrastructure be repaired prior to pilot projects and other work? For instance, after the rains of 201 7 resulted in significant runoff on and along Peppertree Tr., the trail was filled and re-graded, resulting in damming of the naturally-formed runoff trenches. Recent rain filled these trenches and pooled in the lower part of PBR, allowing rain water to infiltrate the ground rather than running off. 13 7. What is the involvement of the Klondike Cyn landslide with the Portuguese Bend landslide as mentioned by Mr. Cullen in the CC meeting of 1/16/18? 8. There's an assumption that the grading done in 1987 as per POC II (moving 500,000 yards from steep areas to flat areas) slowed the land movement. Has anybody looked at the rainfall during that time to determine whether other variables might be responsible for the slower movement? 9. At what point in the process will the noise, dust, trail closures and other impacts of the extensive construction work over a long period of time, on trail users, residents of Rolling Hills and the Portuguese Bend community, and visitors to Terranea Resort be considered in the mix of concerns? 1 O.Portuguese Bend Club is involved in slide remediation in their area. Have the possible impacts of their grading and other work on the Klondike Cyn slide and/or the PBLC, whether positive or negative, been systematically examined? Alternatives 1. Surface drainage within the landslide is poor, said consultants during the CC meeting, and "can't get water to move through to the ocean where it normally and originally and natively went to. It gets essentially dammed up by the slide material." Was some of that "slide material" deposited by man and why not focus on returning to a more natural drainage course, particularly because the PBLC apparently showed little movement for decades (centuries?) until man began to grade the area for roads, damming the natural water courses? 2. The consultants' presentation indicated that the "lower reaches of Portuguese and Paintbrush Canyons have been destroyed". They were destroyed by man. What is the feasibility of restoring the lower reaches of the canyons to allow rainwater to flow naturally to the ocean? 3. Has an analysis been done on leaving the upper reaches of the canyons in their natural state and only addressing the lower reaches, for example possibly lining "the sandbox", or part of it, with some type of flexible fabric and directing the water from that low area down to the ocean through some type of flexible piping? 4. What is the feasibility--risks and benefits--of creating a wetland atop a liner in the low area of the sandbox? 14 5. What is the feasibility of supporting PVDS on caissons or other support structures down to the basalt bedrock, or creating a floating road or a bridge, anchored on both ends of the land flow, allowing the land flow to pass below the road surface? Supporters of These Question Submissions to Date (2/2/18) 1. Eva Cicoria 33.Bill Ailor, PhD 66. Virginia Cicoria 2. Ken Swenson 34.Jim Knight 67. Carolynn Petru 3. Pam Emch, PhD 35. Cassie Jones 68.Andy Petru 4. Barb Ailor 36.John Spielman 69.Sharon Fair 5. Jim Rassler 37.Kathy Christie 70.Joe Platnick 6. Cynthia Woo 38. Susan Cyr 71.June Treherne 7. Randy Harwood 39.Tom Cyr 72.Linda L. Varner 8. Noel Park 40.Scott Ammons 7 3.Leonard W. 9. Tony Baker 41.Lewis Enstedt Varner 1 O.David Sundstrom 42.Megan McElroy 74.Jeremiah N. I I.Barbara Gleghorn 43.Amy Friend George, PhD 12. George Gleghorn 44.Rick Wallace 7 5.David Quadhamer 13.Ann Shaw 45. Grace Wallace 7 6. Kathy Hill 14.Allen Franz 46.Peter Shaw 77.Leslie Chapin 15. David Berman 47.Marianne Hunter 78. Christine 16. Bill Lavoie 48. Wendy Watson Campbell 17.Dave Wiggins 49.Joan Kelly 79. Tami Podesta 18.Donna 50. Vicki Hulbert 80. Gina Henderson McLaughlin 51.Randy Hulbert 81.Mark McGinn 19.Ian Song 52.Katie Vanderhal 82.Adela Barnett 20.Barbara Sattler 53.Jeremy Vanderhal 83.Bruce Biesman- 21.Rob Kautz 54.Joyce Jessoe Simons 22.Elizabeth Sala 55.Brett Barker 84.BobFord 23.Heather White 56. Geraldine Cole 85.Al Sattler 2 4. George Neuner 5 7. Brian Donnelly 86. South Coast 2 5. Diana Bailey 58. Cynthia Donnelly Chapter of the 26.Evi Meyer 59.Mel Lefkowitz California Native 2 7. Emile Fies !er 60.Linda Wu Plant Society 28. Cathy Nichols 61.Denise Donegan 29.Jim Aichele 62. Terry Scott 30.Bob Shanman 63.Jim Scott 31. Mike Kilroy 64. Sharon Yarber 32. Greg Marcelo 65. Virgil Cicoria 15