Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20191217 Late Correspondence
1 From:Teresa Takaoka Sent:Wednesday, December 18, 2019 11:07 AM To:Nathan Zweizig Subject:FW: December 17,2019 City Council Meeting - Item #2 From: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 6:16 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov> Subject: December 17,2019 City Council Meeting ‐ Item #2 The December 17 Council agenda Item #2 brings back the Ladera Linda project with a request for more funds “due to the unforeseen necessity for a Conditional Use Permit review and California Environmental Act review etc… We wonder, does Staff recall at the last meeting on (December 3rd) that several members of the Council requested that the Ladera Linda project be scheduled for further Council review? It appears that the Council’s request for a project review is being ignored with a request for more funds? 1 From:Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org> Sent:Tuesday, December 17, 2019 5:09 PM To:Ara Mihranian; Noel Park Cc:CityClerk; Barbara Ailor; Cris Sarabia; Eva Cicoria; CC; Adrienne Mohan; Susan Wilcox; Elias Sassoon; Al Subject:Re: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Unfortunately I will not be able to make it to tonight's meeting because Al is ill. Therefore I join the "interested parties" who have requested that this agenda item be deferred to a later date. Thank you for your consideration. Barbara Sattler On 12/17/2019 9:54 AM, Barbara Sattler wrote: Thank you for your reassurances, Ara. As you know, I have participated in many of the CEQA reviews that have been done by the city over the years. I think there is a key difference in that most of those reviews were done for private projects that were designed to meet the goals of the property owner. A big exception of course was the review for the NCCP. But in the case of the NCCP, Alternate Plans had been discussed for quite a long time in the early stages of the NCCP planning group, and the proposed plan had gone through reviews at City Council and with the Wildlife Resource agencies. As it now stands, it seems that any CEQA review for the currently proposed landslide mitigation project would focus only on the goals and alternative that are contained in the current proposal. I can imagine the CEQA process requiring modifications to that project design, but I find it difficult to imagine how the CEQA review alone might possibly provide us with any very different Alternative project. From my experience with CEQA evaluations, it seems like whether an Alternative satisfies a stated goal or not is a key element in the review determinations. In this case, I think we need to take a second look at the goals and make sure that they are comprehensive enough to include all of the concerns that the public has. I also believe that in a project of this magnitude we really do need to have a second opinion and design for a different Alternative Plan. As we stated in our comment letter, different consultants have unique sets of experience and expertise, and a second consulting firm might suggest a very different approach to this problem. Barbara Sattler On 12/16/2019 10:35 PM, Ara Mihranian wrote: 2 Noel, Please be assured that the CEQA process you experienced with the Port of Los Angeles will NOT occur in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes…you have my word. I have worked on several EIRs for the City and they are led by the City and include public participation at various stages of the process including an initial scoping meeting, the draft EIR and Final EIR which includes responses to comments. In RPV, public comments are considered and the scope of the project may be adjusted and/or mitigation measures included to ensure impacts are addressed. A statement of overriding consideration must be adopted for any impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. That said, I should say, that this project will result in some degree of impact to native plants. To say otherwise would be false. However, this project is subject to the minimization requirements of the NCCP/HCP which will be addressed in the CEQA document. Moreover, I know you have been following the evolution of this project and the impacts and footprint have been reduced partially based on public input. The City will provide the leadership and direction. The City is the lead agency and the loss of habitat that will occur for this project will be counted against the City’s allowance (the less we impact the more we save, like a savings account). Ara From: Noel Park [mailto:noelparkone@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 8:13 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; Susan Wilcox <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Thank you for your your courtesy in responding to my comments. I tried in my comments to communicate my doubts as to the adequacy of the CEQA process to address the concerns which the community has expressed. I will try to explain my reasons in more detail. My cynicism about the CEQA process is largely a result of my bitter experiences with the Port of Los Angeles. In both the China Shipping case and the Wilmington railyard case, their non-responsive so- called Environmental Impact Reports were rejected by the courts as inadequate and misleading. A follow on China Shipping EIR is about to be the subject of further litigation. These extensive EIRs were commissioned by the Port at a cost of millions of dollars. They were certified by the Harbor Commission and the Los Angeles City Council. My takeaway from all of this is that the "CEQA process", despite all of the flowery language in the law, has devolved into one where consultants' mission is to entitle the client's predetermined preference while minimizing the cost of any "mitigation". 3 The only recourse then left to the impacted citizens is litigation. For these reasons, I have stressed in my previous comments the need for elected officials and staff to publicly commit to protecting the extremely sensitive wildlife and habitat at risk. They must give clear direction to any CEQA consultant(s) that this is the case. To rely upon a CEQA consultant to recognize the unique issues involved with the Nature Preserve, let alone to require adequate mitigation for any impacts, is not realistic. The leadership and direction must come from the client before the "process" starts, and the client must ensure that the result is responsive and appropriate. It is the moral duty of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and staff to provide such direction and supervision. Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, Noel Park 6715 El Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 562-423-5147 On Dec 16, 2019 1:42 PM, "Ara Mihranian" <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Noel, I understand the concerns you and others have expressed, and would like to explain what the City Council is being asked to consider tomorrow evening. As you know, the City Council is not being asked to approve the project for construction. However, they are essentially being asked to approve the project description so that the City can proceed with the CEQA process which most likely will require the preparation of an EIR. Through the EIR process, the project description, along with alternatives, will be studied to examine the potential impacts on the surrounding environment and to provide mitigation measures. If impacts cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council may consider one of the alternatives or adopt a statement of overriding considerations. Many times, projects change during the CEQA process because of the potential impacts. So it doesn’t mean that the project studied by the CEQA document will be the final project. 4 The City feels that we are now at a point that the project can be defined to proceed with the CEQA process. The concerns the public is providing us as part of their correspondence will be packaged and provided to the environmental consultant to be addressed in the CEQA document. I hope this helps. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Acting City Manager ___________________________________ 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5202 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? 5 This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 7:25 AM To: Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>; Barbara Ailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Susan Wilcox <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Good Morning Noel: Thanks for reaching out to us. Your email will be included as part of late correspondence for this item. Regards, 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 6 From: Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 5:42 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>; Barbara Ailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Susan Wilcox <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Greetings from Phoenix, Arizona. It is now 5:30 AM local time. As I am unable to sleep while worrying about this issue, I will take the "opportunity" to offer you a few more comments. I might add that I am sitting in the hotel room bathroom, to avoid waking my partner. I noted in my previous comments that the time allowed for the public to study and understand the documents is insufficient. The agenda for the 12/17 meeting, with the attached voluminous staff report, was transmitted via list serve on 12/10, 7 days before the meeting, and 15 days before Christmas. This is clearly the busiest time of the year for the majority of the population. This is hardly conducive to robust public participation. The time honored Public Relations (PR) tactic of issuing press releases on controversial issues on Friday afternoons to minimize media coverage springs to mind. My previous comments were largely typed on a cell phone in the back seat of a car being driven across Interstate 10 in 75 mph + holiday traffic. A highly frustrating experience which I recommend to no one. So please forgive me for any typos, or its possibly confrontational tone. The Nature Preserve was funded largely by the State and Federal wildlife agencies and established largely to provide habitat and refuge for the threatened and endangered California Gnat Catcher, Cactus Wren, and the Palos Verdes and El Segundo Blue Butterflies. Not to mention the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat itself. These tiny and defenseless creatures have been delivered into our stewardship. It is our moral obligation to protect them from harm by whatever means necessary. The staff report and the consultant's report do not provide any guidance as to mechanisms for providing such protection. The attached pages, evidently from the NCCP, do state the requirement that that work on any projects within the Preserve shall stop if any of those individuals are encountered, until adequate measures are taken for their protection. However, no 7 means are provided to ensure that this is done. Much more (any?) emphasis should be given to this critical issue. Many large public works construction projects in sensitive areas have qualified biologists on site to ensure that critical habitat areas are protected. The cost of such surveillance should be included in the budget for any project, preferably under the auspices of the PVPLC. This project is utterly unique, in that it is to be undertaken in a Nature Preserve, dedicated to the preservation of threatened and endangered species I cannot stress strongly enough our responsibility for the care and custody of these resources. To blithely state that we have an entitlement for so many acres of "take" (a highly offensive word in my frame of reference) is not responsive to our responsibility as stewards of this land and it's wildlife. Please keep this responsibility uppermost in your minds as you consider any proposed project. These issues may be addressed at some level during the CEQA process. However, I have considerable experience with that process. My experience shows me that the results thereof largely depend on the leadership of the client retaining the CEQA consultant. Unless the consultant is given strong direction regarding the issues I have raised, they are likely to be glossed over. The time to lay down the marker is now. Finally, I mentioned in my previous comments the lack of current and thorough subsurface exploration. I predicted a public backlash and possible damage to the reputations of those involved if project results are disappointing. I failed to recognize the more basic truth that we are stewards of the $21 million of public money which would clearly be at risk. I submit that a project of such a size clearly justifies a substantially larger investment on the front end to increase it's chances of success. Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, Noel Park 6715 El Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 562-413-5147 On Dec 15, 2019 9:52 PM, "Noel Park" <noelparkone@gmail.com> wrote: I have attended every public opportunity to participate in the development of this plan. Alas, a long planned and command performance family trip prevents me from attending this Council meeting. I submit that the time allowed between the publication of the staff report and the meeting date is insufficient for busy members of the public to adequately analyze and comment thereon. 8 The report and attachments are 255 pages long. The 255 pages are filled with highly technical language and difficult to interpret visual presentations. It is very difficult to interpret what is actually proposed to be built. Therefore, I respectfully request that this agenda item be postponed to allow the public adequate time to try to understand what is going on. I would also request that a clear, comprehensive, paper presentation of what is proposed to be built be made available for the public to study. That said, I offer the following comments, based upon the limited opportunity to study the documents. As a Professional Engineer, I am astounded and quite troubled, by the complete lack of current geotechnical subsurface explorations including, but not limited to, soil borings, done to underpin this design effort. Any such information dates back to 2000, and even 1997. Even then, the amount done appears to be extremely limited. Not to mention that the land has moved extensively since then. The "notional" budget for the project is $21 million. To base such an expensive, highly geotechnical, project on zero current subsurface explorations seems to be a false economy at best. If the project fails to perform as supposed, the potential for public backlash and damage to people's reputations is substantial. I strongly suggest that we step back, commission a substantial amount of subsurface explorations, and then review the design in light of the results. What we have now is a highly sophisticated analysis based upon arguably extremely sketchy assumptions. I cannot imagine that the land movement will instantly stop if and when this project is due implemented. More likely it will slow down over time, possibly over several years. During that time, the new structures will be exposed to damage. The consultants have rightly stressed the need for robust surveillance and maintenance. The cost of this must be weighed in any decision to go forward. The failure of earlier projects for lack of maintenance is is there to see. All that said, my basic concern is, and always has been, degradation of existing native habitat in the Preserve. There is mention in the consultant's report of working closely with PVPLC staff to minimize such degradation to the greatest extent possible. I challenge the City Council and staff to do your utmost to make it so. Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) plants are very slow growing. Large ones many take 50+ years to attain full size. Removing them is a sin in my view. Nowhere in the report is there a specific reference to replacing removed native habitat as mitigation for that removal. In earlier RPV environmental documents it was required that removed CSS be replaced on a 3:1 basis. Somehow, in the NCCP, it apparently got reduced to 2:1. Recently, apparently to try to pacify Mr. York (apparently undoable), we saw a ratio of 1.4:1. I call upon the City to show an example of environmental leadership and good faith and commit to replacing all removed CSS and native grassland on a 3:1 basis elsewhere in the Preserve. From the first public meeting on this issue, I expressed the hope and the need for any project to result in a net improvement to the Nature Preserve. Mitigation for any 9 removal of native habitat can be an opportunity to achieve that result. Many acres of invasive plants are currently being removed via the City's laudable cooperation with the PVPLC. If the native habitat on some or all of them can be restored via mitigation for this project before invasive weeds can return, it can be a wonderful win-win result. As you know, I have total respect for the PVPLC staff. If the City will work out a satisfactory damage minimization and mitigation package agreement with them, I will be the happiest person in RPV. Finally, the report clearly holds out the possibility of lining the upper canyons in a subsequent project. As you know perfectly well, that is a red line for many of our residents, myself included. If any such thing is contemplated in the future, I trust that you will recognize the need for an entirely new public outreach program. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Noel Park 6715 El Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 562-413-5147 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK DECEMBER 17, 2019 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting. Item No. CLOSED SESSION F 2 3 Description of Material Email from Jim York Updated Attachment A (Resolution) Emails from: Don Bell; Herb Stark Email exchange between City Manager Mihranian and Noel Park; Emails from: Gordon Leon; Elizabeth Sala; Randy Harwood; Eva Cicoria; Barbara Sattler; Donald Bebel ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, December 16, 2019**. Respectfully submitted, L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\20191217 additions revisions to agenda.docx From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Jim York <theyorkproperties@gmail.com> Monday, December 16, 2019 6:27 PM CityCierk; CC; PC; Ara Mihranian; Adrienne Mohan; David Mayer; marybeth_woulfe@fws.gov Scott B. Birkey; Andrew Sabey Correspondence for RPV City Council Meeting 12/17/19 Closed Session Item 2 York v RPV Ltr to RPV.pdf; ATT00001.txt Please see the attached letter from our legal counsel Jim York 1 I~ COX CASTLE NICHOLSON December 16, 20 19 VIAE-MAIL June S. Ailin Aleshire & Wynder, LLP 2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475 El Segundo, CA 90245 Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, California 94111-4710 P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262-5199 Scott B. Birkey 415.262.5162 sbirkey@coxcastle.com File No. 080942 Re: December 17, 2019, Closed Session-York Point View Properties, LLC v. City of Ranchos Palos Verdes Dear Ms. Ailin: On behalf of our client, York Point View Properties, LLC ("York"), we provide the following comments in anticipation of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' (the "City") December 17, 2019, Closed Session Item 2.a, regarding existing litigation in the case titled, York Point View Properties, LLC v. City of Ranchos Palos Verdes, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS174116. The City's recent revision to Section 5.3.1 ofthe now-final Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (the "Final NCCP/HCP") does not cure the claims brought by York in its Verified First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint ("Petition"). Rather, Section 5.3.1 continues to treat the York property differently than other similar properties without any scientific justification. Indeed, the City's new 1.4:1 conservation-to-development mitigation ratio·--prescribed for the York property alone and used nowhere else in the Final NCCP/HCP--is quite clearly a subterfuge designed to mask the City's intent to acquire York's property without having to pay for it. Thus, while Section 5.3 .1 might appear to be an accommodation and a step back from the original 40-acre requirement, the underlying substance remains the same. As we have repeatedly explained, the City and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") (collectively, the "Wildlife Agencies") are attempting to illegally take York's property. The revisions to Section 5.3.1 are nothing more than a last-minute attempt by the City to disguise its intent to rob the York property of any meaningful development potential. York intends to amend its Petition and fight this illegal exaction, until the City amends the Final NCCP/HCP and provides equal treatment to the York property or acquires the property at fair market value. www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles I Orange County I San Francisco June S. Ailin December 16,2019 Page 2 1. Section 5.3.1 Continues To Require A 40-Acre, 300-Foot-Wide Corridor. The City had scheduled a hearing on the Final NCCP/HCP for October 29, 2019, and revealed no changes to the treatment of York's property or description of Section 5.3.1. On the eve of October 29, the City suddenly announced that the item would be continued due to concerns expressed by CDFW. On November 13, the City revealed an entirely re-written Section 5.3 .1 with no explanation of what happened in those two weeks. On November 19,2019, the City adopted the Final NCCP/HCP which-apart from Section 5.3.1-made no substantive changes to the previous drafts. Section 5.3.1, however, was completely re-written in an apparent attempt to accommodate theY ork property and remove the 40-acre, 300-foot wildlife corridor requirement for any development on the prope1iy. Yet, the underlying substance of Section 5.3.1 has not changed; development of the York property continues to be conditioned on a 40-acre, 300-foot-wide wildlife corridor. Section 5.3.1 of the Final NCCP/HCP provides, in relevant part: Due the importance of the Lower Filiorum property as a regional linkage, specific conservation goals and standards continue to apply under [the Final] NCCP/HCP. These include establishing a functional, live-in wildl{fe movement corridor that maintains a minimum 300-foot width and connects the Upper Filiorum Reserve to the Abalone Cove Reserve. Establishing this corridor will require conserving approximately 58% of the remaining undeveloped 69.5 acres of the property in a contiguous configuration. . . . Most importantly, future development could not preclude establishment of the 300-foot-wide wildlife corridor for the City to still meet the requirements of the NCCP/HCP .... To maintain connectivity and offset impacts, if a portion of the remaining 69.5 acres of open space on the property is proposed for development, a pro rata share at a 1.4: 1 ratio (conservation: development) will be required to be conserved prior to initiation of construction activities. Mitigation will occur on site and contribute to the 58% conservation and corridor requirement due to the Lower Filiorum property's role as a key species movement corridor. Unsurprisingly, 58% ofthe remaining 69.5 acres ofthe property equates to 40.31 acres, which must be conserved in a contiguous configuration. Moreover, Section 5.3.1 still facially requires a minimum 300-foot-wide corridor, connecting the Upper Filiorum Reserve to the Abalone Cove. In all material respects, revised Section 5.3.1 is no different than before, and it continues to prevent feasible development in a manner that singles out York's property for unfavorable treatment relative to similarly situated land in the City. June S. Ailin December 16, 2019 Page 3 The newly added 1.4:1 mitigation ratio does not save Section 5.3.1. As with the percentage requirement, the mitigation ratio would still require the York property to conserve approximately 40.5 acres of the remaining 69.5 acres (again, in a contiguous configuration) for any meaningful development proposal. Even more, the 1.4:1 mitigation ratio does not exist anywhere else in the Final NCCP/HCP; it applies only to the York property. It lacks any scientific foundation and simply is another attempt by the City to mask its true intent of acquiring the York property for free. 2. York Should Be Treated Like Other Private Projects In The NCCP/HCP. In the revised Section 5.3 .1, the City disingenuously claims that its treatment of the York property and the 1.4:1 mitigation ratio requirement are "comparable to other private projects in the plan area." If the City actually wanted to treat the York property equally to other private projects, it could simply require that future development of the York property be subject to the same standards and mitigation ratios required elsewhere in the Final NCCP/HCP. The City attempts to justify the use of the 1.4:1 mitigation ratio based only on the claim that it is similar to mitigation ratios used for native grassland, non-native grassland, and coastal sage scrub ("CSS"). Actual application of the 1.4:1 ratio, however, demonstrates that this justification is without merit, further demonstrating that the City included the one-off ratio to conceal its actual intent. Pursuant to Section 5.3 of the Final NCCP/HCP (Covered Private Projects and Activities), other private projects in the plan area are subject to a 0.5: I mitigation ratio for impacted non-native grassland, as well as a 2:1 mitigation ratio for impacted CSS and a 3:1 mitigation ratio for impacted native grassland. Under these standards, York primarily would be subject to the 0.5:1 ratio, given that the majority ofthe York property is comprised ofnon-native grassland. Under Section 5.3 .1, York remains subject to the 1.4:1 ratio, despite the actual composition of the property. In other words, York is required to conserve approximately three times as much land. A generic, indiscriminate mitigation ratio, like the 1.4:1 ratio used for the York property, does not protect unique habitat characteristics, i.e., habitat characteristics that are important for foraging or rare in the area, because it is not designed with those characteristics in mind. Rather, it treats all habitats the same, whether or not they provide important species- related functions. Thus, when the 1.4:1 ratio is applied to the York property, without actually considering the type of vegetation that exists on the property, it produces wholly different results than the habitat-specific ratios. As a result, any justification used to support the NCCP/HCP's habitat-specific mitigation requirements cannot also support the newly-hatched 1.4:1 ratio. Rather, it is simply another attempt to exact 40 acres from the York property without any compensation. Notably, even if the City were to amend Section 5.3.1 and impose habitat-specific mitigation ratios on the York property, it would still be treating the York property differently that June S. Ailin December 16, 2019 Page 4 other private projects in the plan area. Under Section 5.3, other private projects must either (1) dedicate additional acreage to the Preserve at the habitat-specific ratios or (2) pay an in-lien mitigation fee to the City at the habitat-specific ratios (at $50,000 per acre). Unlike the York property, other private projects are not subject to on-site conservation. The revised Section 5.3 .1 provides an additional red herring in its final attempt to disguise the City's actual intent. Under Section 5.3.1, the York property may mitigate future project impacts through payment of the City's in-lieu fee, but only ifthe property has otherwise satisfied the wildlife movement corridor and 58% (40-acre) conservation requirements through acquisition of property or on-site dedications. Not only is the City attempting to illegally take York's property, but it is also requiring that York pay the City after the fact. This requirement is devoid of any reason. 3. There Is No Justification For The Corridor. Section 5.3.1 is largely justified by the alleged "importance of the Lower Filiorum property as a regional linkage." According to the Staff Report accompanying the Final NCCP/HCP: The live-in corridor on the Lower Filiorum property is a necessary design and functional component of the Preserve, because it allows the Wildlife Agencies to make findings that the Preserve provides core and linkage habitat areas necessary for covered species preservation .... The Lower Filiorum property is the only remaining property available to provide a functional linkage between Preserve properties. The wildlife corridor would provide a link between Three Sisters Reserve, Filiorum Reserve, Portuguese Bend Reserve, and Forrestal Reserve and essentially, the Rancho Palos Verdes coastline, via the Abalone Cove Reserve. The Final NCCP/HCP and the Staff Report, however, fail to recognize that such a linkage already exists. Pursuant to Section 4.5 of the Final NCCP/HCP, there is approximately 1,169.7 acres of"Neutral Lands" surrounding the Preserve that "that add biological function (e.g., facilitate wildlife movement) and value to the Preserve." Importantly, Neutral Lands are "currently undevelopable" due to extreme slopes, Open Space Hazard zoning, or deed-restricted open space. These lands also contain approximately 670.9 acres of natural vegetation, 430.2 acres of which is CSS habitat. The Neutral Lands identified in the Final NCCP/HCP already provide the functional linkage required by the City and Wildlife Agencies. As depicted in the image below, the Final NCCP/HCP plan area is adjacent to a large, contiguous section ofNeutral Lands that JuneS. Ailin December 16, 2019 Page 5 connects the upper regions of the Preserve to the Ranchos Palos Verdes coastline, via the Abalone Cove Reserve. Any linkage provided by the York property would be duplicative. Log end Q NCC P/HCP Pla n Boondo<y N cuu ~l l end s t:: j JurtSdlt•onoJ _Bound ary 10UO!J "!!!eliii-I!!!Wiiil!!!!~!"'iiiiiiiiiiiii~~I Feet FIGURE Neutral Lands ~ June S. Ail in December 16 , 2019 Page 6 * * * Section 5.3.1 ofthe Final NCCP/HCP is an unreasonable and unfounded attempt to justify what is otherwise a clear-cut illegal take of York's property. The City should amend Section 5.3.1 to treat the York property like other private projects in the plan area or, alternatively, work with the Wildlife Agencies and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy to acquire the property at fair market value. Sincerely, ~~~- Scott B. Birkey 080942\ll3l276lv6 cc:. City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilmembers Ari Mihranian, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mary Beth Woulfe , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service David A. Mayer, California Department of Fish and Wildlife From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Hi Nathan, Please see attachment. Thank you, Octavio Silva Octavia Silva Tuesday, December 17, 2019 10:35 AM CityCierk FW: 12/17 City Council Meeting, Late Correspondence Agenda Item F Attachment A_Resolution_RHNA Methodology_2.pdf; City of HB Letter.pdf Interim Deputy Director of Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov octavios@rpvca.gov (31 0) 544-5234 From: Octavia Silva Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 8:12AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Terry Rodrigue <TRodrigue@rpvca.gov> Subject: 12/17 City Council Meeting, Late Correspondence Agenda Item F Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, For your consideration at the December 17th City Council meeting, I have attached an updated resolution related to Item "F" on the agenda's consent calendar. The resolution was updated to include stronger language in opposition to SCAG's RHNA methodology. The updated resolution is in response to an RHNA opposition letter (attached) filed with state and regional agencies by the City of Huntington Beach. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at the information listed below. Thank you, Octavio Silva Interim Deputy Director of Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca.gov octavios@rpvca.gov (31 0) 544-5234 1 F RESOLUTION NO. 2019-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS' APPROVED DRAFT REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY. WHEREAS, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) serves as a representation of future housing needs for all income levels in a jurisdiction during a specified planning period, and is a requirement of California housing law; and, WHEREAS, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the regional planning organization tasked with developing a RHNA allocation plan for the Southern California region, representing six counties and 191 cities, including the City of Rancho Palos Verdes; and, WHEREAS, SCAG is in the process of preparing a sixth cycle RHNA allocation plan to cover the planning period of 2012-2029, which requires the development and approval of a RHNA methodology to distribute existing and projected housing needs to each jurisdiction in the SCAG region; and, WHEREAS, on August 20, September 9, and October 29, 2019, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes submitted comment letters to SCAG expressing concerns with draft RHNA methodologies being considered at the time and requesting more local input in the RHNA methodology preparation process; and, WHEREAS, on November 7, 2019, the SCAG Regional Council approved an "alternative" draft RHNA methodology under which the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would be required to provide for a total of 619 housing units during the next planning period; and, WHEREAS, the "alternative" draft RHNA methodology on which the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' allocation was based was approved without adequate notice to the City and other affected jurisdictions that the SCAG Regional Council was going to consider using an "alternative" methodology or what that methodology would be and how it would impact member jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, as reported by the City of Huntington Beach, at the November 7, 2019 meeting of the SCAG Regional Council, member jurisdictions were not allowed to provide meaningful input on, or make objections on the record to, the "alternative" methodology; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2019, SCAG submitted the approved RHNA methodology to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for a 60-day review and comment period. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The facts set forth in the recitals of this Resolution are true and correct and are incorporated herein by references as though set forth in full. Section 2: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes the SCAG-approved RHNA methodology as it was approved without adequate notice to, and opportunity to comment by, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and other member jurisdictions, and it fails to consider the City's unique challenges and physical constraints, which include geologic hazards, wildlife/habitat preservation, and over 90% of its territory being designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Section 3: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes also opposes the SCAG-approved RHNA methodology as a "top down" housing mandate that, combined with a lack of available housing sites and the State legislature's willingness to punish cities that do not achieve their RHNA allocations, is setting up the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for an unachievable sixth cycle RHNA allocation. Section 4: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes urges SCAG and HCD to work collaboratively with all jurisdictions to ensure that a sixth cycle RHNA allocation methodology is developed that incorporates local input and meets the objectives of RHNA. Section 5: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the City Council. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 17th day of December 2019. ATTEST: Emily Colborn, City Clerk John Cruikshank, Mayor Resolution No. 2019-_ Page 2 of 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, EMILY COLBORN, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2019-_, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on December 17, 2019. City Clerk Resolution No. 2019- Page 3 of 3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE of the CITY ATTORNEY Michael E. Gates City Attorney Mil{e Vigliotta Chief Assistant City Attorney November 20, 2019 Doug McCauley, Director Tad Egawa, General Counsel P.O. Box 190 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Telephone: (714) 536-5555 Facsimile: (714) 374-1590 California Department of Housing and Community Development 2020 West El Camino A venue Sacramento, CA 95833 Bill Jahn, President Kome Ajise, Executive Director Joann Africa, Chief Counsel Southern California Association of Governments 900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Jonathon T. Hughes, Regional Affairs Officer Orange County Regional Office OCT A Building 600 South Main Street, Suite 406 Orange, CA 92868 Brian L. Williams Chief Trial Counsel Gemia L.T. Mercer Community Prosecutor Jemma Dunn Sr. Deputy City Attorney DanielS. Cha Sr. Deputy City Attorney Scott Field Deputy City Attorney Re: SCA G 's November 7'" Illegal Action to Apportion Excessive, Arbitrary & Capricious RHNA to tile City of Huntington Beach for the 6th Planning Cycle Dear Messrs. McCauley, Egawa, Jahn, Ajise, Hughes and Ms. Africa, We are writing to place into the record an objection to the illegal and blatantly unfair vote that took place at the November 7, 2019, Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") Regional Council Meeting. As you know, in a substitute motion, in a 43-19 vote, SCAG took action to approve an "alternative" Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA") distribution method proposed by, and promoted by, Riverside Mayor Rusty Bailey. To be abundantly clear, this violates the law both procedurally and substantively. 218400 .docx Re: SCAG's November 7th Illegal Action to Apportion Excessive, Arbitrary & Capricious RHNA November 20, 2019 Page2 First, the City of Huntington Beach did not receive proper or adequate notice that SCAG would entertain such a vote on such an "alternative" and legally unsupported methodology. It was not clearly part of the advance agenda and there was only a brief, vague letter sent by email two days prior to Huntington Beach that this "alternative" methodology was being contemplated. To the contrary, prior to this meeting, SCAG had consistently and repeatedly set forth certain methodologies upon which the City of Huntington Beach relied. In addition to the lack of adequate notice of the "alternative" RHNA distribution method that ultimately occurred, the City of Huntington Beach was not allowed to provide any meaningful input, or place any objections on the record at the meeting before the vote. In a blatant disregard of controlling parliamentary rules, the Mayor Pro Tern of Huntington Beach, Lyn Semeta's request to speak to the members was categorically denied-depriving her and the City of Huntington Beach any opportunity to voice an objection to, or provide any input to, the voting members before the vote was taken. Again, a blatant denial to Huntington Beach to participate in the SCAG RHNA process. Moreover, this illegal vote resulted in a massive shift of RHNA for the 6th Cycle to coastal cities. Prior to the November 7th vote, the City of Huntington Beach had been informed by SCAG to anticipate a RHNA distribution for the 6th Cycle of 3,612 units. After the November 7th vote by SCAG, the City of Huntington Beach has learned that the RHNA distribution will be 13,300-a nearly 370% increase to the City of Huntington Beach. This massive shift of RHNA to beach cities, like Huntington Beach, squarely undermines SCAG's long and historical defense of the legality of the RHNA methodology. The City of Huntington Beach on the other hand has long held, and has repeatedly voiced, that the methodology for RHNA determinations has been flawed, wrought with political manipulation, and not based on objective, verifiable real-world empirical data, this latest vote on November 7th proves the very point that Huntington Beach has argued all along, i.e., that there is no rational methodology at all. In fact, peeling back the veil of false pretense, we now see these RHNAs amount to nothing more than an arbitrary and capricious assignment of a zoning/development burdens imposed on cities by a political majority from outside those cities. SCAG Denied the CitY of Huntington Beach a Voice, Participation in the Process For the past year, the SCAG RHNA subcommittee and the City of Huntington Beach have been meeting monthly, parsing through complicated formulas in an effort to determine a reasonable methodology that complies with RHNA statutory law. These formulas appear to provide unbridled discretion regarding options like proximity to jobs, access to transportation, available land to build on and projected household growth when determining RHNA distribution. As the process evolved, many public meetings were held throughout the SCAG region to discuss and obtain public comment on the methodology. All ofthis input also included the opportunity for individual Re: SCAG's November 7th Illegal Action to Apportion Excessive, Arbitrary & Capricious RHNA November 20,2019 Page3 jurisdictions to use estimation calculator tools provided by SCAG to ascertain impacts of various proposed methodologies on their city. The jurisdictions each had the opportunity to provide suggestions for changing the proposed formulas and many cities, like Huntington Beach, did provide suggestions. At the end of this year-long process, SCAG staff proposed a final methodology to be voted on at the November 7th Regional Council Meeting. Although we continue to object to the 1.3 million regional allocation, Huntington Beach and the other Orange County cities were prepared to vote in favor of the SCAG staff-recommended methodology as it appeared to be a fair, equitable formula for distribution based on reasonable factors, i.e., factors set forth by State law. Bear in mind, with each change to the proposed methodology options throughout the process, SCAG staff spent considerable time crunching the numbers, applying the different factors so that at the time the Regional Council voted on the final proposal, the methodology had been thoroughly vetted and analyzed for its impacts and rationale as a "reasonable" methodology. Unfortunately, at the 11th hour, after ignoring earlier multiple opportunities to give input as to why an alternate formula should be proposed, the elected officials of Riverside and Los Angeles, in an apparent backroom deal, sprung new, "alternative" (irrational) methodology that capriciously and baselessly shifted a massive portion of the RHNA distribution onto Orange County, targeting, specifically, beach cities. Notably, the day of the meeting, eleven of the fourteen Los Angeles City Council Members, who are all able to cast votes due to their city's size, decided to attend the SCAG's meeting to vote against smaller Orange County. It appears that many of these Council Members never attended prior SCAG meetings. San Bernardino County voted in support ofthe deal because it benefitted them as well. As a result of the massive, 11th hour, "overnight" shift ofRHNA to Orange County pursuant to the vote, Riverside's RHNA wentfrom235,131 units to 165,696; SanBernardino'swasreduced, 181,774to 135,047; and Orange County's increased dramatically from 107,978 units to 182,194. It appears that the Los Angeles, Riverside contingent orchestrated the 11th hour vote ahead oftime and therefore had time to line up multiple comment letters and multiple public comment speakers in advance to come to the Regional Council Meeting to speak and support the alternative methodology. Orange County, kept in the dark until the last minute, did not. Setting aside for a moment the procedural violations, the new/alternative methodology was not fully analyzed for impacts by SCAG staff before the vote-in square violation of substantive provisions of State law. This methodology was not previously supported by SCAG staff. The new/alternative method fails to follow applicable State law in part by removing local input and growth forecast data. The time staff from all jurisdictions spent analyzing and providing data regarding the realities of our own individual jurisdictions, in terms of cities' ability to build housing, was completely and illegally disregarded. The current methodology ignores the very real constraints that coastal cities must cope with Re: SCAG's November 7th Illegal Action to Apportion Excessive, Arbitrary & Capricious RHNA November 20, 2019 Page4 such as obtaining Coastal Commission approvals for zoning and development, and the scarcity and lack of available land and other environmental constraints -including Huntington Beach's particular interest in preserving the only large undeveloped and natural portion of the City -its beautiful and highly valued Wetlands. SCAG Not Adhering to State Law, Prescribed Methodology The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) through Council of Governments (COG) and/or Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) purports to identify certain existing and projected regional housing needs for alleged projected State population and household growth. (Government Code§ 65584, et seq.) SCAG covers the six-county Southern California region counties oflmperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura. The COG develops a Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan (RHNA-Plan) allocating the region's share of the Statewide need to cities and counties within the region." The typical scenario is that HCD, in consultation with each COG, such as SCAG, determines the existing and projected housing needs for each region. (Government Code§ 65584.01 (describing the manner in which the needs determination shall be made).) The RHNA plan must be consistent with the following objectives: (1) increasing the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability within the region in an equitable manner, which must result in each jurisdiction receiving an allocation for low- and very low-income units; (2) promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and the encouragement of efficient development patterns; (3) promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing; and (4) allocating a lower proportion of housing needs to an income category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of households in that category. (Government Code§ 65584(d).) According to HCD, ''the RHNA-Plan process requires local governments to be accountable for ensuring that projected housing needs can be accommodated and provides a benchmark for evaluating the adequacy of local zoning and regulatory actions to ensure each local government is providing sufficient appropriately designated land and opportunities for housing development to address population growth and job generation." The November 71h vote is in direct violation of State Housing law. Moreover, there is no evidence that the State conducted an adequate constraints analysis such that projects built to accommodate the City's additional RHNA numbers would be in conflict with the new State law and regulation regarding water conservation. (Government Code Section 65584.04 (d)(2).) In apparent contravention to the above State law authorities, it appears that SCAG is unilaterally determining each jurisdiction's share ofRHNA through an arbitrary, capricious, and clearly politically motivated approach that is in contravention to State law. What this does, especially for the 13,300 RHNA assigned to Huntington Beach, in combination with the unconstitutional State mandates under SB 35, SB 166, SB 1333, and AB 1 01, is create a situation where Huntington Beach and many other cities will Re: SCAG's November 7th Illegal Action to Apportion Excessive, Arbitrary & Capricious RHNA November 20, 2019 Page 5 automatically be in violation of the newly passed State Housing laws. Such non~ compliance wiH immediately result, according to recent State laws, in massive monetary damages to the City through the operation AB 101. A scheme of laws that create an impossible situation for individuals and cities are illegal, unconstitutional, and cannot stand. Clearly, the City of Huntington Beachjs concerns with this new proposed RHNA distribution are various, many of which have to do with what this excessive RHNA figure means in the context of the recently-passed untenable, unworkable, irnpractical, and unconstitutionally oveneaching State Housing laws. Those are not the complaints here. However, highlighting what excessive RHNA does to a city in light of these laws is quite illuminating-and quite frankly demonstrates the punitive and destructive nature ofthe State's grand housing proliferation scheme toward cities. Based upon the foregoing and as a result of this illegal vote (if fully implemented), the City of Huntington Beach will sustain real, appreciable damages. The November 7111 vote by SCAG, which resulted in a massive shift of distribution ofRHNA to Huntington Beach in the amount of 13,300 for the 6th Cycle, procedurally and substantively violates State Housing law. As a result, SCAG must reconsider the November 7111 vote in a mam1er that complies with State law. Very truly you· ~n-·-. ~r~~ .CHAEL E. GATES, Attorney ERIK PETERSON, Mayor ~'i£~ LYN SEMETA, Mayor Pro Tem Southern California Association of Governments Regional Council Member, District 64 Nathan Zweizig From: Sent: To: Emily Colborn Tuesday, December 17, 2019 10:55 AM CityCierk Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting December 18, 2018 LC Emily Colborn, MMC, City Clerk Rancho Palos Verdes Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com> Date: December 17,2019 at 10:54:02 AM PST To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Home Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com> Subject: City Council Meeting December 18, 2018 In reference to December 18, 20 19 Regular Business Item 2 Dear City Council Members: Here we are again. The City Council is asked to approve more money for the Ladera Linda Money Pit. We see Parks and Recreation staff continuing a career of justifying a plan that is opposed by the Local Neighborhood. Now a construction date of September 1, 2020 is proposed. We were supposed to have been done with this years ago. Do the correct skills exist within the city to manage projects like this? One action the City Council should consider is to demand an audit of all the soft and hard expenses that have already been spent on outside experts as well as staff time and expenses on the idea of a new building and park at Ladera Linda. Easily multiple millions have been consumed over at least 9 years with no results except controversy. You should decide if taxpayer dollars have been spent wisely? You should also decide why it has happened and what needs to be changed to avoid a repeat in the future. How has the project gotten this far with more money needed for an other year to complete steps such as CUP, CEQUA, MND, and the Planning Commission that logically should have been budgeted years ago? Was the need for these steps never contemplated earlier? Just how many other dollars are still to be requested? What about the costs of moving and storing the contents of the existing buildings? What about costs for furnishing the new space? What about anticipated costs for services such as janitorial, security and maintenance for the new design? What about additional staff to support the proposed new programs? You should hold staff responsible for coming up with an estimate of all the potential costs for completion as well as operating the new design and programs for five years. There may be significant cost increases looming that no one wants to acknowledge right now. These and other expenses lurk in future requests to City Council for more and more money. Are you being again asked for more money to continue the long journey toward an uncertain final dream? One thing for sure -Ladera Linda residents are very happy now with nothing being done. We are not welcoming life with a multi-year construction project at our doorstep and creation of a potential attractive nuisance that may diminish the value of our homes and quality of life. 1 Thank you for your consideration. Don Bell 3571 Vigilance drive Ladera Linda 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Herb Stark < pt17stearman@gmail.com > Tuesday, December 17, 2019 11:47 AM CC; CityCierk In reference to December 18, 2019 Regular Business Item 2 I am opposed to the approval of additional contractor funds. The council clearly needs to understand the true cost of the Ladera Linda Park project. It is clear that Cory Linder, Director of Recreation and Parks, does not have a handle on the total cost or scope of the project. This is the first time these items have come up. Why were they not part of the original contract if it was a requirement. How many more surprises are in the wings. I suggest that there be a complete audit of the project before any further work is authorized. Herb Stark Rancho Palos Verdes 1 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com> Tuesday, December 17,2019 10:13 AM Ara Mihranian Barbara Sattler; Barbara Ailor; CityCierk; Cris Sarabia; CC; Eva Cicoria; Susan Wilcox; Adrienne Mohan; Elias Sassoon RE: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Thank you again for your courtesy. The fact that the City Manager would engage with ordinary citizens at this level does the City a lot of credit. I can only echo the comments of Ms. Sattler. I feel that she made much the same points as I did, possibly in a somewhat more polite and organized way. As you know, many of us have made what are to us substantial commitments to the PVPLC and the Nature Preserves. Thus the arguably emotional level ofthese comments. I have said from the first meeting that there is a great opportunity to create a win-win outcome around any such project so that all can come away happy with the result. I am committed to work with you and anyone else to make it so. Thank you again for your courtesy. Sincerely, Noel Park 6715 El Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 562-413-5147 On Dec 16, 2019 11:36 PM, "Ara Mihranian" <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote: Noel, Please be assured that the CEQA process you experienced with the Port of Los Angeles will NOT occur in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ... you have my word. 1 have worked on several EIRs for the City and they are led by the City and include public participation at various stages of the process including an initial seeping meeting, the draft EIR and Final EIR which includes responses to comments. In RPV, public comments are considered and the scope of the project may be adjusted and/or mitigation measures included to ensure impacts are addressed. A statement of overriding consideration must be adopted for any impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. 1 That said, I should say, that this project will result in some degree of impact to native plants. To say otherwise would be false. However, this project is subject to the minimization requirements ofthe NCCP/HCP which will be addressed in the CEQA document. Moreover, I know you have been following the evolution of this project and the impacts and footprint have been reduced partially based on public input. The City will provide the leadership and direction. The City is the lead agency and the loss of habitat that will occur for this project will be counted against the City's allowance (the less we impact the more we save, like a savings account). Ara From: Noel Park [mailto:noelparkone@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 8:13 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; Susan Wilcox <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Thank you for your your courtesy in responding to my comments. I tried in my comments to communicate my doubts as to the adequacy of the CEQA process to address the concerns which the community has expressed. I will try to explain my reasons in more detail. My cynicism about the CEQA process is largely a result of my bitter experiences with the Port of Los Angeles. In both the China Shipping case and the Wilmington railyard case, their non-responsive so-called Environmental Impact Reports were rejected by the courts as inadequate and misleading. A follow on China Shipping EIR is about to be the subject of further litigation. These extensive EIRs were commissioned by the Port at a cost of millions of dollars. They were certified by the Harbor Commission and the Los Angeles City Council. My takeaway from all of this is that the "CEQA process", despite all of the flowery language in the law, has devolved into one where consultants' mission is to entitle the client's predetermined preference while minimizing the cost of any "mitigation". The only recourse then left to the impacted citizens is litigation. For these reasons, I have stressed in my previous comments the need for elected officials and staff to publicly commit to protecting the extremely sensitive wildlife and habitat at risk. They must give clear direction to any CEQA consultant(s) that this is the case. To rely upon a CEQA consultant to recognize the unique issues involved with the Nature Preserve, let alone to require adequate mitigation for any impacts, is not realistic. 2 The leadership and direction must come from the client before the "process" starts, and the client must ensure that the result is responsive and appropriate. It is the moral duty of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and staff to provide such direction and supervision. Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, Noel Park 6715 El Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 562-423-5147 On Dec 16,2019 1:42PM, "Ara Mihranian" <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Noel, I understand the concerns you and others have expressed, and would like to explain what the City Council is being asked to consider tomorrow evening. As you know, the City Council is not being asked to approve the project for construction. However, they are essentially being asked to approve the project description so that the City can proceed with the CEQA process which most likely will require the preparation of an EIR. Through the EIR process, the project description, along with alternatives, will be studied to examine the potential impacts on the surrounding environment and to provide mitigation measures. If impacts cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council may consider one of the alternatives or adopt a statement of overriding considerations. Many times, projects change during the CEQA process because of the potential impacts. So it doesn't mean that the project studied by the CEQA document will be the final project. The City feels that we are now at a point that the project can be defined to proceed with the CEQA process. The concerns the public is providing us as part of their correspondence will be packaged and provided to the environmental consultant to be addressed in the CEQA document. I hope this helps. Ara 3 Ara Michael Mihranian Acting City Manager 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5202 (telephone) 31 0-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www. rpvca.gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail mcssaqc contains information belonginq to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privilened, confidential and/or protected frorn disclosure. The infonnat~.m is intended only for use of tho individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copyin(J is strictly prohibited. lf you received this email in error, or an2 not an intended recipient, please notify the sender imrnecliately. T"f1<mk you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 7:25 AM To: Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>; Barbara Ailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Susan Wilcox <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; CityCierk <CityCierk@ rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation 4 Good Morning Noel: Thanks for reaching out to us. Your email will be included as part of late correspondence for this item. Regards, 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: Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 5:42 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>; Barbara Ailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Susan Wilcox <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation 5 Greetings from Phoenix, Arizona. It is now 5:30AM local time. As I am unable to sleep while worrying about this issue, I will take the "opportunity" to offer you a few more comments. I might add that I am sitting in the hotel room bathroom, to avoid waking my partner. I noted in my previous comments that the time allowed for the public to study and understand the documents is insufficient. The agenda for the 12/17 meeting, with the attached voluminous staff report, was transmitted via list serve on 12110, 7 days before the meeting, and 15 days before Christmas. This is clearly the busiest time of the year for the majority of the population. This is hardly conducive to robust public participation. The time honored Public Relations (PR) tactic of issuing press releases on controversial issues on Friday afternoons to minimize media coverage springs to mind. My previous comments were largely typed on a cell phone in the back seat of a car being driven across Interstate 10 in 75 mph+ holiday traffic. A highly frustrating experience which I recommend to no one. So please forgive me for any typos, or its possibly confrontational tone. The Nature Preserve was funded largely by the State and Federal wildlife agencies and established largely to provide habitat and refuge for the threatened and endangered California Gnat Catcher, Cactus Wren, and the Palos Verdes and El Segundo Blue Butterflies. Not to mention the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat itself. These tiny and defenseless creatures have been delivered into our stewardship. It is our moral obligation to protect them from harm by whatever means necessary. The staff report and the consultant's report do not provide any guidance as to mechanisms for providing such protection. The attached pages, evidently from the NCCP, do state the requirement that that work on any projects within the Preserve shall stop if any of those individuals are encountered, until adequate measures are taken for their protection. However, no means are provided to ensure that this is done. Much more (any?) emphasis should be given to this critical issue. Many large public works construction projects in sensitive areas have qualified biologists on site to ensure that critical habitat areas are protected. The cost of such surveillance should be included in the budget for any project, preferably under the auspices of the PVPLC. This project is utterly unique, in that it is to be undertaken in a Nature Preserve, dedicated to the preservation of threatened and endangered species I cannot stress strongly enough our responsibility for the care and custody of these resources. To blithely state that we have an entitlement for so many acres of "take" (a highly offensive word in my frame of reference) is not responsive to our responsibility as stewards of this land and it's wildlife. Please keep this responsibility uppermost in your minds as you consider any proposed project. These issues may be addressed at some level during the CEQA process. However, I have considerable experience with that process. My experience shows me that the results thereof largely depend on the leadership of the client retaining the CEQA consultant. Unless the consultant is given strong direction regarding the issues I have raised, they are likely to be glossed over. The time to lay down the marker is now. Finally, I mentioned in my previous comments the lack of current and thorough subsurface exploration. I predicted a public backlash and possible damage to the reputations of those involved if project results are disappointing. I failed to recognize the more basic truth that we are stewards of the $21 million of public money which would clearly be at risk. I submit that a project of such a size clearly justifies a substantially larger investment on the front end to increase it's chances of success. Thank you again for your consideration. 6 Sincerely, Noel Park 6715 El Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 562-413-514 7 On Dec 15, 2019 9:52 PM, "Noel Park" <noelparkone@gmail.com> wrote: I have attended every public opportunity to participate in the development of this plan. Alas, a long planned and command performance family trip prevents me from attending this Council meeting. I submit that the time allowed between the publication of the staff report and the meeting date is insufficient for busy members of the public to adequately analyze and comment thereon. The report and attachments are 255 pages long. The 255 pages are filled with highly technical language and difficult to interpret visual presentations. It is very difficult to interpret what is actually proposed to be built. Therefore, I respectfully request that this agenda item be postponed to allow the public adequate time to try to understand what is going on. I would also request that a clear, comprehensive, paper presentation of what is proposed to be built be made available for the public to study. That said, I offer the following comments, based upon the limited opportunity to study the documents. As a Professional Engineer, I am astounded and quite troubled, by the complete lack of current geotechnical subsurface explorations including, but not limited to, soil borings, done to underpin this design effort. Any such information dates back to 2000, and even 1997. Even then, the amount done appears to be extremely limited. Not to mention that the land has moved extensively since then. The "notional" budget for the project is $21 million. To base such an expensive, highly geotechnical, project on zero current subsurface explorations seems to be a false economy at best. If the project fails to perform as supposed, the potential for public backlash and damage to people's reputations is substantial. I strongly suggest that we step back, commission a substantial amount of subsurface explorations, and then review the design in light of the results. What we have now is a highly sophisticated analysis based upon arguably extremely sketchy assumptions. I cannot imagine that the land movement will instantly stop if and when this project is due implemented. More likely it will slow down over time, possibly over several years. During that time, the new structures will be exposed to damage. The consultants have rightly stressed the need for robust surveillance and maintenance. The cost of this must be weighed in any decision to go forward. The failure of earlier projects for lack of maintenance is is there to see. All that said, my basic concern is, and always has been, degradation of existing native habitat in the Preserve. There is mention in the consultant's report of working closely with PVPLC staff to minimize such degradation to the greatest extent possible. I challenge the City Council and staff to do your utmost to make it so. Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) plants are very slow growing. Large ones many take 50+ years to attain full size. Removing them is a sin in my view. 7 Nowhere in the report is there a specific reference to replacing removed native habitat as mitigation for that removal. In earlier RPV environmental documents it was required that removed CSS be replaced on a 3:1 basis. Somehow, in the NCCP, it apparently got reduced to 2:1. Recently, apparently to try to pacify Mr. York (apparently undoable ), we saw a ratio of 1.4: 1. I call upon the City to show an example of environmental leadership and good faith and commit to replacing all removed CSS and native grassland on a 3:1 basis elsewhere in the Preserve. From the first public meeting on this issue, I expressed the hope and the need for any project to result in a net improvement to the Nature Preserve. Mitigation for any removal of native habitat can be an opportunity to achieve that result. Many acres of invasive plants are currently being removed via the City's laudable cooperation with the PVPLC. If the native habitat on some or all of them can be restored via mitigation for this project before invasive weeds can return, it can be a wonderful win-win result. As you know, I have total respect for the PVPLC staff. If the City will work out a satisfactory damage minimization and mitigation package agreement with them, I will be the happiest person in RPV. Finally, the report clearly holds out the possibility oflining the upper canyons in a subsequent project. As you know perfectly well, that is a red line for many of our residents, myself included. If any such thing is contemplated in the future, I trust that you will recognize the need for an entirely new public outreach program. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Noel Park 6715 El Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 562-413-5147 8 From: Sent: To: Subject: Good morning, Nasser Razepoor Tuesday, December 17,2019 8:09AM CityCierk FW: Portuguese Bend Landslide mitigation Project Please include this email as part of late correspondence for this item. Thanks, Nasser Razepoor, PE Associate Civil Engineer Department of Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: 310-544-5307 From: Gordon Leon <gordon.leon@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 9:01 PM To: Nasser Razepoor <nrazepoor@rpvca.gov> Cc: Dennis Gardner <dennisggardner@me.com>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com> <knightjim33@gmail.com> Subject: Landslide mitigation Nasser, I will not be able to attend the meeting. I have two comments: 1. The city should try some of the techniques and measure the result prior to committing to the full project to limit the city's exposure. 2. Work should be done to Altamira Canyon to protect all of the homes and Wayfarers Chapel. Thanks for including me. Gordon Leon Gordon Leon 310-463-9244 1 3 .. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Good Morning Ms. Sala: Thanks for reaching out to us. Elias Sassoon Tuesday, December 17, 2019 7:42AM Elizabeth Sala <etsala@live.com> CC; CityCierk; Ron Dragoo FW: Portuguese Landslide Mitigation Project Your email will be included in the late correspondence regarding this item. Regards, Elias K. Sassoon, Director Department of Public Works 5=it:i_Q_[Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: 310-544-5335 From: Elizabeth Sala <ftsala@live.com> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 4:12 PM To: CC <IT.@.r:pvca.gov> Subject: Portuguese Landslide Mitigation Project Dear City Council, I am writing with respect to the Portuguese Landslide Mitigation Project proposal. My comments are on the issues of permitting, water quality, water quantity, and beneficial water re-use. Permitting The regulatory body that protects the water quality of our Pacific Ocean so that it is remains healthy and viable for all living things is the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). They have been granted the authority to enforce protections of the ocean via the Environmental Protection Agency, as authorized through the Clean Water Act. The SWRCB is divided into nine regional boards. Here in Rancho Palos Verdes, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) is the regional agency with the power to enforce programs and policies to protect our water. One of the instruments the LARWQCB uses to protect the oceans is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This is used anytime there is a discharge into the ocean from a point source. A point source can be a discrete conveyance system such as a pipe, whic: is what is being proposed for the Portuguese Landsli~• Mitigation Project. An NPDES permit can be complex-it requires a specific monitoring program which determines pollutants to be analyzed along with a sampling schedule. My concern is that the current proposal does not mention this requirement. In fact, it does not even include the LARWQCB as a potential regulatory agency in the section on permitting. In addition, the discharge will be entering into a California Marine Protected Area (MPA}-which is protected through a collaboration between the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Ocean Protection Council, the Fish and Game Commission, and the MPA Statewide Leadership team. This, too, was not mentioned in the report. During the construction phase of this project, since it is larger than one acre, a Construction Stormwater NPDES permit will also be required. Again, not mentioned. Water Quality I did not see any analysis of the water quality that will be dewatered from the landslide area. In addition to the regulatory agencies mentioned above, the water discharged may need to meet the standards in the California Ocean Plan and the Basin Plan. Water Quantity I was not able to find estimates regarding the amount of water that would be discharged into the ocean in the report. This would be needed for further study. Beneficial Water Re-use Water is a precious resource. During recent years we have experienced drought as well as plentiful rainfall. The climate is changing; has changed. There is a new understanding in the world that all water is precious-nothing should be wasted. I think a serious look at how this water could be used should be investigated. Depending on the quality and the quantity, there are different applications. One example for potential re-use would be irrigation. The location of the landslide is close to two large golf courses as well as homes -locations that might be interested in using the water for irrigation. However, further study would be required. A firm specializing in storm water could do this. There is also the possibility the water could be used for potable purposes-again, further study is needed. There is no local water in Rancho Palos Verdes. This could be a tremendous asset to the community. For the above reasons, I would like to suggest that a second opinion be solicited for this project. Additional research and analysis need to be performed, along with a firm specializing in storm water applications and regulations. Additional important information needs to be provided in order to assist the Council in making an informed decision. Thank you, Elizabeth Sala 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, December 17, 2019 2:00PM CityCierk FW: Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation From: Randy Harwood <randykharwood@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 9:08AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and Staff re: Portuguese bend Landslide Mitigation Project proposal Thank you for releasing the consultant's report for their proposed measures to mitigate the landslide issues in Portuguese Bend. The document is quite long and very complex. I think a postponement of this is appropriate to give the public time to fully read and prepare comments. I personally have a number of concerns regarding the stated proposals and hope other proposals that are less expensive and less intrusive might be looked at before continuing with this huge project. Sincerely, Randy Harwood Rolling Hills Estates 1 3. From: Sent: To: Cc: Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com> Tuesday, December 17, 2019 10:31 AM bsattler@igc.org; Ara Mihranian; Noel Park CityCierk; barbailor@gmail.com; csarabia@pvplc.org; CC; amohan@pvplc.org; swilcox@pvplc.org; Elias Sassoon; alsattler@igc.org Subject: Re: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Well said, Barbara. it seems that any CEQA review for the currently proposed landslide mitigation project would focus only on the goals and alternative that are contained in the current proposal. I can imagine the CEQA process requiring modifications to that project design, but I find it difficult to imagine how the CEQA review alone might possibly provide us with any very different Alternative project. From my experience with CEQA evaluations, it seems like whether an Alternative satisfies a stated goal or not is a key element in the review determinations. In this case, I think we need to take a second look at the goals and make sure that they are comprehensive enough to include all of the concerns that the public has. I also believe that in a project of this magnitude we really do need to have a second opinion and design for a different Alternative Plan. As we stated in our comment letter, different consultants have unique sets of experience and expertise, and a second consulting firm might suggest a very different approach to this problem. Eva -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org> To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com> Cc: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; Susan Wilcox <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; AI <alsattler@igc.org> Sent: Tue, Dec 17, 2019 9:54am Subject: Re: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Thank you for your reassurances, Ara. As you know, I have participated in many of the CEQA reviews that have been done by the city over the years. I think there is a key difference in that most of those reviews were done for private projects that were designed to meet the goals of the property owner. A big exception of course was the review for the NCCP. But in the case of the NCCP, Alternate Plans had been discussed for quite a long time in the early stages of the NCCP planning group, and the proposed plan had gone through reviews at City Council and with the Wildlife Resource agencies. As it now stands, it seems that any CEQA review for the currently proposed landslide mitigation project would focus only on the goals and alternative that are contained in the current proposal. I can imagine the CEQA process requiring modifications to that project design, but I find it difficult to imagine how the CEQA review alone might possibly provide us with any very different Alternative project. From my experience with CEQA evaluations, it seems like whether an Alternative satisfies a stated goal or not is a key element in the review determinations. In this case, I think we need to take a second look at the goals and make sure that they are comprehensive enough to include all of the concerns that the public has. I also believe that in a project of this magnitude we really do need to have a second opinion and design for a different Alternative Plan. As we stated in our comment letter, different consultants have unique sets of experience and expertise, and a second consulting firm might suggest a very different approach to this problem. Barbara Sattler 1 3. On 12/16/2019 10:35 PM, Ara Mihranian wrote: Noel, Please be assured that the CEQA process you experienced with the Port of Los Angeles will NOT occur in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ... you have my word. I have worked on several EIRs for the City and they are led by the City and include public participation at various stages of the process including an initial seeping meeting, the draft EIR and Final EIR which includes responses to comments. In RPV, public comments are considered and the scope of the project may be adjusted and/or mitigation measures included to ensure impacts are addressed. A statement of overriding consideration must be adopted for any impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. That said, I should say, that this project will result in some degree of impact to native plants. To say otherwise would be false. However, this project is subject to the minimization requirements of the NCCP/HCP which will be addressed in the CEQA document. Moreover, I know you have been following the evolution of this project and the impacts and footprint have been reduced partially based on public input. The City will provide the leadership and direction. The City is the lead agency and the loss of habitat that will occur for this project will be counted against the City's allowance (the less we impact the more we save, like a savings account). Ara From: Noel Park [mailto:noelparkone@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 8:13 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; Susan Wilcox <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Thank you for your your courtesy in responding to my comments. I tried in my comments to communicate my doubts as to the adequacy of the CEQA process to address the concerns which the community has expressed. I will try to explain my reasons in more detail. My cynicism about the CEQA process is largely a result of my bitter experiences with the Port of Los Angeles. In both the China Shipping case and the Wilmington railyard case, their non-responsive so-called Environmental Impact Reports were rejected by the courts as inadequate and misleading. A follow on China Shipping EIR is about to be the subject of further litigation. These extensive EIRs were commissioned by the Port at a cost of millions of dollars. They were certified by the Harbor Commission and the Los Angeles City Council. My takeaway from all of this is that the "CEQA process", despite all of the flowery language in the law, has devolved into one where consultants' mission is to entitle the client's predetermined preference while minimizing the cost of any "mitigation". The only recourse then left to the impacted citizens is litigation. For these reasons, I have stressed in my previous comments the need for elected officials and staff to publicly commit to protecting the extremely sensitive wildlife and habitat at risk. They must give clear direction to any CEQA consultant(s) that this is the case. To rely upon a CEQA consultant to recognize the unique issues involved with the Nature Preserve, let alone to require adequate mitigation for any impacts, is not realistic. The leadership and direction must come from the client before the "process" starts, and the client must ensure that the result is responsive and appropriate. It is the moral duty of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and staff to provide such direction and supervision. Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, Noel Park 6715 El Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 562-423-5147 On Dec 16, 2019 1:42 PM, "Ara Mihranian" <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote: 2 Hi Noel, I understand the concerns you and others have expressed, and would like to explain what the City Council is being asked to consider tomorrow evening. As you know, the City Council is not being asked to approve the project for construction. However, they are essentially being asked to approve the project description so that the City can proceed with the CEQA process which most likely will require the preparation of an EIR. Through the EIR process, the project description, along with alternatives, will be studied to examine the potential impacts on the surrounding environment and to provide mitigation measures. If impacts cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council may consider one of the alternatives or adopt a statement of overriding considerations. Many times, projects change during the CEQA process because of the potential impacts. So it doesn't mean that the project studied by the CEQA document will be the final project. The City feels that we are now at a point that the project can be defined to proceed with the CEQA process. The concerns the public is providing us as part of their correspondence will be packaged and provided to the environmental consultant to be addressed in the CEQA document. I hope this helps. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Acting City Manager C!TVOF 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. I<A.Na 10 PALOS VERDES Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 31 0-544-5202 (telephone) 31 0-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ~It; Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 7:25AM To: Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>; Barbara Ailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Susan Wilcox <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Good Morning Noel: Thanks for reaching out to us. Your email will be included as part of late correspondence for this item. 3 Regards, 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: Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 5:42AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>; Barbara Ailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Susan Wilcox <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Greetings from Phoenix, Arizona. It is now 5:30 AM local time. As I am unable to sleep while worrying about this issue, I will take the "opportunity" to offer you a few more comments. I might add that I am sitting in the hotel room bathroom, to avoid waking my partner. I noted in my previous comments that the time allowed for the public to study and understand the documents is insufficient. The agenda for the 12/17 meeting, with the attached voluminous staff report, was transmitted via list serve on 12/10, 7 days before the meeting, and 15 days before Christmas. This is clearly the busiest time of the year for the majority of the population. This is hardly conducive to robust public participation. The time honored Public Relations (PR) tactic of issuing press releases on controversial issues on Friday afternoons to minimize media coverage springs to mind. My previous comments were largely typed on a cell phone in the back seat of a car being driven across Interstate 10 in 75 mph +holiday traffic. A highly frustrating experience which I recommend to no one. So please forgive me for any typos, or its possibly confrontational tone. The Nature Preserve was funded largely by the State and Federal wildlife agencies and established largely to provide habitat and refuge for the threatened and endangered California Gnat Catcher, Cactus Wren, and the Palos Verdes and El Segundo Blue Butterflies. Not to mention the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat itself. These tiny and defenseless creatures have been delivered into our stewardship. It is our moral obligation to protect them from harm by whatever means necessary. The staff report and the consultant's report do not provide any guidance as to mechanisms for providing such protection. The attached pages, evidently from the NCCP, do state the requirement that that work on any projects within the Preserve shall stop if any of those individuals are encountered, until adequate measures are taken for their protection. However, no means are provided to ensure that this is done. Much more (any?) emphasis should be given to this critical issue. Many large public works construction projects in sensitive areas have qualified biologists on site to ensure that critical habitat areas are protected. The cost of such surveillance should be included in the budget for any project, preferably under the auspices of the PVPLC. This project is utterly unique, in that it is to be undertaken in a Nature Preserve, dedicated to the preservation of threatened and endangered species I cannot stress strongly enough our responsibility for the care and custody of these resources. To blithely state that we have an entitlement for so many acres of "take" (a highly offensive word in my frame of reference) is not responsive to our responsibility as stewards of this land and it's wildlife. Please keep this responsibility uppermost in your minds as you consider any proposed project. These issues may be addressed at some level during the CEQA process. However, I have considerable experience with that process. My experience shows me that the results thereof largely depend on the leadership of the client retaining the CEQA consultant. Unless the consultant is given strong direction regarding the issues I have raised, they are likely to be glossed over. The time to lay down the marker is now. Finally, I mentioned in my previous comments the lack of current and thorough subsurface exploration. I predicted a public backlash and possible damage to the reputations of those involved if project results are disappointing. I failed to recognize the 4 more basic truth that we are stewards of the $21 million of public money which would clearly be at risk. I submit that a project of such a size clearly justifies a substantially larger investment on the front end to increase it's chances of success. Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, Noel Park 6715 El Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 562-413-5147 On Dec 15, 2019 9:52PM, "Noel Park" <noelparkone@gmail.com> wrote: I have attended every public opportunity to participate in the development of this plan. Alas, a long planned and command performance family trip prevents me from attending this Council meeting. I submit that the time allowed between the publication of the staff report and the meeting date is insufficient for busy members of the public to adequately analyze and comment thereon. The report and attachments are 255 pages long. The 255 pages are filled with highly technical language and difficult to interpret visual presentations. It is very difficult to interpret what is actually proposed to be built. Therefore, I respectfully request that this agenda item be postponed to allow the public adequate time to try to understand what is going on. I would also request that a clear, comprehensive, paper presentation of what is proposed to be built be made available for the public to study. That said, I offer the following comments, based upon the limited opportunity to study the documents. As a Professional Engineer, I am astounded and quite troubled, by the complete lack of current geotechnical subsurface explorations including, but not limited to, soil borings, done to underpin this design effort. Any such information dates back to 2000, and even 1997. Even then, the amount done appears to be extremely limited. Not to mention that the land has moved extensively since then. The "notional" budget for the project is $21 million. To base such an expensive, highly geotechnical, project on zero current subsurface explorations seems to be a false economy at best. If the project fails to perform as supposed, the potential for public backlash and damage to people's reputations is substantial. I strongly suggest that we step back, commission a substantial amount of subsurface explorations, and then review the design in light of the results. What we have now is a highly sophisticated analysis based upon arguably extremely sketchy assumptions. I cannot imagine that the land movement will instantly stop if and when this project is due implemented. More likely it will slow down over time, possibly over several years. During that time, the new structures will be exposed to damage. The consultants have rightly stressed the need for robust surveillance and maintenance. The cost of this must be weighed in any decision to go forward. The failure of earlier projects for lack of maintenance is is there to see. All that said, my basic concern is, and always has been, degradation of existing native habitat in the Preserve. There is mention in the consultant's report of working closely with PVPLC staff to minimize such degradation to the greatest extent possible. I challenge the City Council and staff to do your utmost to make it so. Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) plants are very slow growing. Large ones many take 50+ years to attain full size. Removing them is a sin in my view. Nowhere in the report is there a specific reference to replacing removed native habitat as mitigation for that removal. In earlier RPV environmental documents it was required that removed CSS be replaced on a 3:1 basis. Somehow, in the NCCP, it apparently got reduced to 2:1. Recently, apparently to try to pacify Mr. York (apparently undoable), we saw a ratio of 1.4: 1. I call upon the City to show an example of environmental leadership and good faith and commit to replacing all removed CSS and native grassland on a 3:1 basis elsewhere in the Preserve. From the first public meeting on this issue, I expressed the hope and the need for any project to result in a net improvement to the Nature Preserve. Mitigation for any removal of native habitat can be an opportunity to achieve that result. Many acres of invasive plants are currently being removed via the City's laudable cooperation with the PVPLC. If the native habitat on some or all of them can be restored via mitigation for this project before invasive weeds can return, it can be a wonderful win-win result. As you know, I have total respect for the PVPLC staff. If the City will work out a satisfactory damage minimization and mitigation package agreement with them, I will be the happiest person in RPV. Finally, the report clearly holds out the possibility of lining the upper canyons in a subsequent project. As you know perfectly well, that is a red line for many of our residents, myself included. If any such thing is contemplated in the future, I trust that you will recognize the need for an entirely new public outreach program. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Noel Park 6715 El Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 562-413-5147 5 From: Sent: To: Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org> Tuesday, December 17, 2019 9:55 AM Ara Mihranian; Noel Park Cc: CityCierk; Barbara Ailor; Cris Sarabia; Eva Cicoria; CC; Adrienne Mohan; Susan Wilcox; Elias Sassoon; AI Subject: Re: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Thank you for your reassurances, Ara. As you know, I have participated in many of the CEQA reviews that have been done by the city over the years. I think there is a key difference in that most of those reviews were done for private projects that were designed to meet the goals of the property owner. A big exception of course was the review for the NCCP. But in the case of the NCCP, Alternate Plans had been discussed for quite a long time in the early stages of the NCCP planning group, and the proposed plan had gone through reviews at City Council and with the Wildlife Resource agencies. As it now stands, it seems that any CEQA review for the currently proposed landslide mitigation project would focus only on the goals and alternative that are contained in the current proposal. I can imagine the CEQA process requiring modifications to that project design, but I find it difficult to imagine how the CEQA review alone might possibly provide us with any very different Alternative project. From my experience with CEQA evaluations, it seems like whether an Alternative satisfies a stated goal or not is a key element in the review determinations. In this case, I think we need to take a second look at the goals and make sure that they are comprehensive enough to include all of the concerns that the public has. I also believe that in a project of this magnitude we really do need to have a second opinion and design for a different Alternative Plan. As we stated in our comment letter, different consultants have unique sets of experience and expertise, and a second consulting firm might suggest a very different approach to this problem. Barbara Sattler On 12/16/2019 10:35 PM, AraMihranian wrote: Noel, Please be assured that the CEQA process you experienced with the Port of Los Angeles will NOT occur in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ... you have my word. I have worked on several EIRs for the City and they are led by the City and include public participation at various stages ofthe process including an initial seeping meeting, the draft EIR and Final EIR which includes responses to comments. In RPV, public comments are considered and the scope of the project may be adjusted and/or mitigation measures included to ensure impacts are addressed. A statement of overriding consideration must be adopted for any impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. That said, I should say, that this project will result in some degree of impact to native plants. To say otherwise would be false. However, this project is subject to the minimization requirements of the NCCP/HCP which will 1 3 be addressed in the CEQA document. Moreover, I know you have been following the evolution of this project and the impacts and footprint have been reduced partially based on public input. The City will provide the leadership and direction. The City is the lead agency and the loss of habitat that will occur for this project will be counted against the City's allowance (the less we impact the more we save, like a savings account). Ara From: Noel Park [mailto:noelparkone@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 8:13 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; Susan Wilcox <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Elias Sassoon <esa ssoo n@ rpvca .gov> Subject: RE: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Thank you for your your courtesy in responding to my comments. I tried in my comments to communicate my doubts as to the adequacy of the CEQA process to address the concerns which the community has expressed. I will try to explain my reasons in more detail. My cynicism about the CEQA process is largely a result of my bitter experiences with the Port of Los Angeles. In both the China Shipping case and the Wilmington railyard case, their non-responsive so- called Environmental Impact Reports were rejected by the courts as inadequate and misleading. A follow on China Shipping EIR is about to be the subject of further litigation. These extensive EIRs were commissioned by the Port at a cost of millions of dollars. They were certified by the Harbor Commission and the Los Angeles City Council. My takeaway from all of this is that the "CEQA process", despite all of the flowery language in the law, has devolved into one where consultants' mission is to entitle the client's predetermined preference while minimizing the cost of any "mitigation". The only recourse then left to the impacted citizens is litigation. For these reasons, I have stressed in my previous comments the need for elected officials and staff to publicly commit to protecting the extremely sensitive wildlife and habitat at risk. They must give clear direction to any CEQA consultant(s) that this is the case. To rely upon a CEQA consultant to recognize the unique issues involved with the Nature Preserve, let alone to require adequate mitigation for any impacts, is not realistic. The leadership and direction must come from the client before the "process" starts, and the client must ensure that the result is responsive and appropriate. It is the moral duty of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and staff to provide such direction and supervision. Thank you again for your consideration. 2 Sincerely, Noel Park 6715 El Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 562-423-514 7 On Dec 16, 2019 1:42PM, "Ara Mihranian" <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Noel, I understand the concerns you and others have expressed, and would like to explain what the City Council is being asked to consider tomorrow evening. As you know, the City Council is not being asked to approve the project for construction. However, they are essentially being asked to approve the project description so that the City can proceed with the CEQA process which most likely will require the preparation of an EIR. Through the EIR process, the project description, along with alternatives, will be studied to examine the potential impacts on the surrounding environment and to provide mitigation measures. If impacts cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council may consider one of the alternatives or adopt a statement of overriding considerations. Many times, projects change during the CEQA process because of the potential impacts. So it doesn't mean that the project studied by the CEQA document will be the final project. The City feels that we are now at a point that the project can be defined to proceed with the CEQA process. The concerns the public is providing us as part of their correspondence will be packaged and provided to the environmental consultant to be addressed in the CEQA document. I hope this helps. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Acting City Manager 3 CITVOF l<r\NOIO PAlOS VERDES 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 31 0-544-5202 (telephone) 31 0-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? This (>mail messaqe contains information belonqing to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may he pr-ivileged, c.onfidHrtial am]ior protected from disclosure. The inf(Jrmation is intended only ffx use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or c.opyinq is strictly prohibited. If you rw:eivcd this ernaii in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender irnmediately. Thank you f<Jr yoUI· <Jssistdnce and cooperation. From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 7:25AM To: Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>; Barbara Ailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Susan Wilcox <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Good Morning Noel: 4 Thanks for reaching out to us. Your email will be included as part of late correspondence for this item. Regards, 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: Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 5:42 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>; Barbara Ailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Susan Wilcox <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Greetings from Phoenix, Arizona. It is now 5:30AM local time. As I am unable to sleep while worrying about this issue, I will take the "opportunity" to offer you a few more comments. I might add that I am sitting in the hotel room bathroom, to avoid waking my partner. I noted in my previous comments that the time allowed for the public to study and understand the documents is insufficient. The agenda for the 12/17 meeting, with the attached voluminous staff 5 report, was transmitted via list serve on 12/10, 7 days before the meeting, and 15 days before Christmas. This is clearly the busiest time of the year for the majority of the population. This is hardly conducive to robust public participation. The time honored Public Relations (PR) tactic of issuing press releases on controversial issues on Friday afternoons to minimize media coverage springs to mind. My previous comments were largely typed on a cell phone in the back seat of a car being driven across Interstate 10 in 75 mph+ holiday traffic. A highly frustrating experience which I recommend to no one. So please forgive me for any typos, or its possibly confrontational tone. The Nature Preserve was funded largely by the State and Federal wildlife agencies and established largely to provide habitat and refuge for the threatened and endangered California Gnat Catcher, Cactus Wren, and the Palos Verdes and El Segundo Blue Butterflies. Not to mention the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat itself. These tiny and defenseless creatures have been delivered into our stewardship. It is our moral obligation to protect them from harm by whatever means necessary. The staff report and the consultant's report do not provide any guidance as to mechanisms for providing such protection. The attached pages, evidently from the NCCP, do state the requirement that that work on any projects within the Preserve shall stop if any of those individuals are encountered, until adequate measures are taken for their protection. However, no means are provided to ensure that this is done. Much more (any?) emphasis should be given to this critical issue. Many large public works construction projects in sensitive areas have qualified biologists on site to ensure that critical habitat areas are protected. The cost of such surveillance should be included in the budget for any project, preferably under the auspices of the PVPLC. This project is utterly unique, in that it is to be undertaken in a Nature Preserve, dedicated to the preservation of threatened and endangered species I cannot stress strongly enough our responsibility for the care and custody of these resources. To blithely state that we have an entitlement for so many acres of "take" (a highly offensive word in my frame of reference) is not responsive to our responsibility as stewards of this land and it's wildlife. Please keep this responsibility uppermost in your minds as you consider any proposed project. These issues may be addressed at some level during the CEQA process. However, I have considerable experience with that process. My experience shows me that the results thereof largely depend on the leadership of the client retaining the CEQA consultant. Unless the consultant is given strong direction regarding the issues I have raised, they are likely to be glossed over. The time to lay down the marker is now. Finally, I mentioned in my previous comments the lack of current and thorough subsurface exploration. I predicted a public backlash and possible damage to the reputations of those involved if project results are disappointing. I failed to recognize the more basic truth that we are stewards of the $21 million of public money which would clearly be at risk. I submit that a project of such a size clearly justifies a substantially larger investment on the front end to increase it's chances of success. Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, 6 Noel Park 6715 El Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 562-413-5147 On Dec 15,2019 9:52PM, "Noel Park" <noelparkone@gmail.com> wrote: I have attended every public opportunity to participate in the development of this plan. Alas, a long planned and command performance family trip prevents me from attending this Council meeting. I submit that the time allowed between the publication of the staff report and the meeting date is insufficient for busy members ofthe public to adequately analyze and comment thereon. The report and attachments are 255 pages long. The 255 pages are filled with highly technical language and difficult to interpret visual presentations. It is very difficult to interpret what is actually proposed to be built. Therefore, I respectfully request that this agenda item be postponed to allow the public adequate time to try to understand what is going on. I would also request that a clear, comprehensive, paper presentation of what is proposed to be built be made available for the public to study. That said, I offer the following comments, based upon the limited opportunity to study the documents. As a Professional Engineer, I am astounded and quite troubled, by the complete lack of current geotechnical subsurface explorations including, but not limited to, soil borings, done to underpin this design effort. Any such information dates back to 2000, and even 1997. Even then, the amount done appears to be extremely limited. Not to mention that the land has moved extensively since then. The "notional" budget for the project is $21 million. To base such an expensive, highly geotechnical, project on zero current subsurface explorations seems to be a false economy at best. If the project fails to perform as supposed, the potential for public backlash and damage to people's reputations is substantial. I strongly suggest that we step back, commission a substantial amount of subsurface explorations, and then review the design in light of the results. What we have now is a highly sophisticated analysis based upon arguably extremely sketchy assumptions. I cannot imagine that the land movement will instantly stop if and when this project is due implemented. More likely it will slow down over time, possibly over several years. During that time, the new structures will be exposed to damage. The consultants have rightly stressed the need for robust surveillance and maintenance. The cost of this must be weighed in any decision to go forward. The failure of earlier projects for lack of maintenance is is there to see. All that said, my basic concern is, and always has been, degradation of existing native habitat in the Preserve. There is mention in the consultant's report of working closely with PVPLC staff to minimize such degradation to the greatest extent possible. I challenge the City Council and staff to do your utmost to make it so. 7 Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) plants are very slow growing. Large ones many take 50+ years to attain full size. Removing them is a sin in my view. Nowhere in the report is there a specific reference to replacing removed native habitat as mitigation for that removal. In earlier RPV environmental documents it was required that removed CSS be replaced on a 3:1 basis. Somehow, in the NCCP, it apparently got reduced to 2:1. Recently, apparently to try to pacify Mr. York (apparently undoable ), we saw a ratio of 1.4: 1. I call upon the City to show an example of environmental leadership and good faith and commit to replacing all removed CSS and native grassland on a 3:1 basis elsewhere in the Preserve. From the first public meeting on this issue, I expressed the hope and the need for any project to result in a net improvement to the Nature Preserve. Mitigation for any removal of native habitat can be an opportunity to achieve that result. Many acres of invasive plants are currently being removed via the City's laudable cooperation with the PVPLC. If the native habitat on some or all of them can be restored via mitigation for this project before invasive weeds can return, it can be a wonderful win- win result. As you know, I have total respect for the PVPLC staff. If the City will work out a satisfactory damage minimization and mitigation package agreement with them, I will be the happiest person in RPV. Finally, the report clearly holds out the possibility of lining the upper canyons in a subsequent project. As you know perfectly well, that is a red line for many of our residents, myself included. If any such thing is contemplated in the future, I trust that you will recognize the need for an entirely new public outreach program. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Noel Park 6715 El Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 562-413-5147 8 From: Sent: To: Subject: LC Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, December 17, 2019 4:24 PM CityCierk FW: Landslide Mitigation Plan From: DONALD BEBEL <donaldbebel@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 4:24PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Landslide Mitigation Plan Based on what I have reviewed in the proposed Landslide Mitigation Plan, due. to the complexity and long term implications, I am in favor of a postponement of the final vote. Donald Bebel 8 Barkentine Road 1 3. CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2019 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, December 17, 2019 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material STUDY Email from Sunshine SESSION PUBLIC Emails from: Sunshine; Nadia Georgieva COMMENTS 3 Email exchange between City Manager Mihranian and Noel Park; Email exchange between Public Works Director Sassoon and Adrienne Mohan; Email exchange between Principal Engineer Dragoo and AI and Barbara Sattler; Emails from: AI and Barbara Sattler; Eva Cicoria 5 Updated Attachments B & C (2020 City Council Assignments with and without redline) Respectfully submitted, L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\20191217 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com> Saturday, December 14, 2019 4:16 PM CC; CityCierk pvpasofino@yahoo.com; jeanlongacre@aol.com; ksnell0001 @aol.com; theyorkproperties@gmail.com; smhvaleri@cox.net; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; info@pvpwatch.com; gardner4@earthlink.net; PC; imac; TSC; FAC; hvybags@cox.net; Bill Gerstner <wgg@squareoneinc.com>; stoneladybug@sbcglobal.net 2020 RPV Transparency and future Agenda topics. December 17, 2019 Study Session Hello City Council and neighbors, Near the end of the December 3, 2019, RPV City Council Meeting, the Members got into a discussion which touched on all three of my suggestions for ways the public to get better information from City Hall and for City Hall to better use the information which is available from the public. The narrow topic was Green Hills Cemetery Conditional Use Permit review. The real topics are: How/when will Council/the public find out Staffs interpretation of what Council directed? My suggestion is that the Staff person who is assigned the task, produce a description of the task as he/she sees it and put it on the Council's next Consent Calendar with a "receive and file" Recommendation. The public could comment. How/when will Council get an opportunity to discuss the pro's, con's and parameters of using Citizen Advisory Commission/Committees? My suggestion is that any time Council Members appear to have differing thoughts about how public comments should be solicited or other occasions when some policy direction is not clear, Staff should put the general issues on the Council's Study Session Agenda and prepare an analysis of the potential repercussions of the various approaches. The Public could comment. How/when will Council be able to read/hear a Staff Recommendation/Agenda Report on projects which involve multiple department's coordination/input and public comments from a wide variety of citizen interests. My suggestion is that the City Council create (Municipal Code) and seat an Infrastructure and Activities Commission. I can name several projects which could benefit from a more coordinated and citizen reviewed approach. One that is in the early stages is 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East. This single family residence Application is in an Equestrian District. It impacts traffic safety, roadway infrastructure planning and a trail in the public Right of Way. A quick visit before the Traffic Safety Committee did not produce any sort of 9nJ f)Y. 1 s~~~D~ Recommendation because there was no discussion of the other objectives. An Infrastructure and Activities Commission could look into how well the greater community's goals have been met before the Planning Commission addresses the specific development proposal. There is too much going on that the public has no access to "the plan" until much too late. If any of my suggestions would help you find out what is going on, I suggest that you send emails to the Mayor (John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov) and copy cityclerk@rpvca.gov with some reference to a project name or an Agenda Item topic. Offer to provide specific examples from your experience. If you are not getting early notice and straight answers from Staff, maybe lots of us suggesting the same suggestions will help our Council to figure out a better way to get us involved .... S 310-377-8761 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Jean, SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com> Monday, December 16, 2019 11:15 AM jeanlongacre@aol.com CC; CityCierk Re: Remembering your Father. December 17 future Agenda Item Thank you for remembering. Can you think of a way to use this to explain to people why Farmer G was such a strong advocate for trail network connectivity? The French were not expecting to have a war in their forest. They just happened to have a network of back roads and one farm boy thought to use them. Papaa was not thinking recreation when he instigated getting the tunnels under Hawthorne and Crenshaw. Think disasters and civil defense. It was RHE who screwed up getting the tunnel under Crest Road at Country Lane and PVPLC/RPV who screwed up getting a tunnel under Hawthorne at Agua Amarga Canyon. It was RPV who ignored the public input, even from RHE Staff, which eliminated equestrian use on the North South Cut-Across Trail (Soi-Y-Mar Project). I am just so concerned that we are losing so much circulation due to ignorance on the part of both Staff and the public. I'll share this as late correspondence for tomorrow's Council Meeting just in case someone might notice .... S 310-377-8761 In a message dated 12116/2019 8:05:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, jeanlongacre@aol.com writes: Hi Sunshine, Today is rememberance day for the Battle of the Bulge. I always think of your father and the many lives he saved. I am grateful for getting to know him and think about all the men who lived to return to their loved ones because of him. He truly changed the course of history. Jean 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear city council people, See attached. Nad Gv <nvgeorg@gmail.com> Monday, December 16, 2019 5:20 PM CityCierk; Emily Colborn For the city council meeting on Dec 17, not on agenda items Dear City councii_Dec_17 _2019.docx I would like you to have it for the non agenda items for the tomorrow's meeting Thank you! Nadia (Vista Verde owner) 1 Dear City council I'd like to talk about few things I encounter with GH past 2 weeks. We have people picnicking even in the rainy days on the top of the Pacific terrace mausoleum. Not only there's noise, but also no privacy on our patios or pool area. Example : Just want to remind you what we are facing almost all the time and there is no simpathy or any "good neigboor" bahaiviour from GH so far. Another issue. We had early morning grading work-prepare for a burrial. This was done with heavy machinery on the ramp leading to the mausoleum. That ramp was used by GH to start the project, a proved for the mausoleum and even used agains us-that when the ramp was built, we should of known that the mausoleum would follow. Also, the building of the mausoleum started more than 3 years after the plans for it were a proved. The ramp was used as a part of the mausoleum building and as that, no new aproval or presentinng the pain for the mausoleum was necessary. You know the code better than us, if a building is not started in 3years after aproval it is a subject to another aproval. On the other hand, there is Statute of limitations in California, according to which if no complains are filed in 3 years of aproval, it makes our challenges to the wrongdoings during the aproval process useless. So, if the ramp was used as a part of the mausoleum structure, isn't suppesed to be used accordingly to the CUP for the Pacific terrace mausoleum use? It is in the same proximity to our building! If the ramp is NOT a part of the mausoleum structure, isn't then the planning permission for the mausoleum illeagal, I wonder. Thank you for your time, and happy holidays© Nadia (Vista Verde) From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Noel, Ara Mihranian Monday, December 16, 2019 12:42 PM Elias Sassoon; Noel Park; CC; Barbara Sattler; Barbara Ailor; Cris Sarabia; Eva Cicoria; Susan Wilcox; Adrienne Mohan; CityCierk RE: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation I understand the concerns you and others have expressed, and would like to explain what the City Council is being asked to consider tomorrow evening. As you know, the City Council is not being asked to approve the project for construction. However, they are essentially being asked to approve the project description so that the City can proceed with the CEQA process which most likely will require the preparation of an EIR. Through the EIR process, the project description, along with alternatives, will be studied to examine the potential impacts on the surrounding environment and to provide mitigation measures. If impacts cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council may consider one of the alternatives or adopt a statement of overriding considerations. Many times, projects change during the CEQA process because of the potential impacts. So it doesn't mean that the project studied by the CEQA document will be the final project. The City feels that we are now at a point that the project can be defined to proceed with the CEQA process. The concerns the public is providing us as part of their correspondence will be packaged and provided to the environmental consultant to be addressed in the CEQA document. I hope this helps. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Acting City Manager CITY OF RANO tO F~os Vl:RDES 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 31 0-544-5202 (telephone) 31 0-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov 1 Do you really need to print this e-mail? Thb c·mail rnessaqe contains information lmlonqinq to the City of l~and1o Palos Verdes, which may be pdvilcqed, confidential <md/or protected from disclosure. The inf(nnation i;; intendeJ only for use of the individual <W entity named. Unauth<wizcd dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. lf you received tl1is email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender irnrnedia!:ely. Thank you for your assistance and cuoperation. From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 7:25AM To: Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>; Barbara Ailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Susan Wilcox <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; CityCierk <CityCierk@ rpvca .gov> Subject: RE: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Good Morning Noel: Thanks for reaching out to us. Your email will be included as part of late correspondence for this item. Regards, 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 From: Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 5:42AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>; Barbara Ailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Susan Wilcox <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Agenda Item 3, 12/17/19 City Council Meeting, Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Greetings from Phoenix, Arizona. It is now 5:30AM local time. As I am unable to sleep while worrying about this issue, I will take the "opportunity" to offer you a few more comments. I might add that I am sitting in the hotel room bathroom, to avoid waking my partner. I noted in my previous comments that the time allowed for the public to study and understand the documents is insufficient. The agenda for the 12/17 meeting, with the attached voluminous staff report, was transmitted via list serve on 12/10,7 days before the meeting, and 15 days before Christmas. 2 This is clearly the busiest time of the year for the majority of the population. This is hardly conducive to robust public participation. The time honored Public Relations (PR) tactic of issuing press releases on controversial issues on Friday afternoons to minimize media coverage springs to mind. My previous comments were largely typed on a cell phone in the back seat of a car being driven across Interstate 10 in 75 mph+ holiday traffic. A highly frustrating experience which I recommend to no one. So please forgive me for any typos, or its possibly confrontational tone. The Nature Preserve was funded largely by the State and Federal wildlife agencies and established largely to provide habitat and refuge for the threatened and endangered California Gnat Catcher, Cactus Wren, and the Palos Verdes and El Segundo Blue Butterflies. Not to mention the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat itself. These tiny and defenseless creatures have been delivered into our stewardship. It is our moral obligation to protect them from harm by whatever means necessary. The staff report and the consultant's report do not provide any guidance as to mechanisms for providing such protection. The attached pages, evidently from the NCCP, do state the requirement that that work on any projects within the Preserve shall stop if any of those individuals are encountered, until adequate measures are taken for their protection. However, no means are provided to ensure that this is done. Much more (any?) emphasis should be given to this critical issue. Many large public works construction projects in sensitive areas have qualified biologists on site to ensure that critical habitat areas are protected. The cost of such surveillance should be included in the budget for any project, preferably under the auspices of the PVPLC. This project is utterly unique, in that it is to be undertaken in a Nature Preserve, dedicated to the preservation of threatened and endangered species I cannot stress strongly enough our responsibility for the care and custody of these resources. To blithely state that we have an entitlement for so many acres of "take" (a highly offensive word in my frame of reference) is not responsive to our responsibility as stewards of this land and it's wildlife. Please keep this responsibility uppermost in your minds as you consider any proposed project. These issues may be addressed at some level during the CEQA process. However, I have considerable experience with that process. My experience shows me that the results thereof largely depend on the leadership of the client retaining the CEQA consultant. Unless the consultant is given strong direction regarding the issues I have raised, they are likely to be glossed over. The time to lay down the marker is now. Finally, I mentioned in my previous comments the lack of current and thorough subsurface exploration. I predicted a public backlash and possible damage to the reputations of those involved if project results are disappointing. I failed to recognize the more basic truth that we are stewards of the $21 million of public money which would clearly be at risk. I submit that a project of such a size clearly justifies a substantially larger investment on the front end to increase it's chances of success. Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, Noel Park 6715 El Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 562-413-514 7 3 On Dec 15,2019 9:52PM, "Noel Park" <noelparkone@gmail.com> wrote: I have attended every public opportunity to participate in the development of this plan. Alas, a long planned and command performance family trip prevents me from attending this Council meeting. I submit that the time allowed between the publication of the staff report and the meeting date is insufficient for busy members of the public to adequately analyze and comment thereon. The report and attachments are 255 pages long. The 255 pages are filled with highly technical language and difficult to interpret visual presentations. It is very difficult to interpret what is actually proposed to be built. Therefore, I respectfully request that this agenda item be postponed to allow the public adequate time to try to understand what is going on. I would also request that a clear, comprehensive, paper presentation of what is proposed to be built be made available for the public to study. That said, I offer the following comments, based upon the limited opportunity to study the documents. As a Professional Engineer, I am astounded and quite troubled, by the complete lack of current geotechnical subsurface explorations including, but not limited to, soil borings, done to underpin this design effort. Any such information dates back to 2000, and even 1997. Even then, the amount done appears to be extremely limited. Not to mention that the land has moved extensively since then. The "notional" budget for the project is $21 million. To base such an expensive, highly geotechnical, project on zero current subsurface explorations seems to be a false economy at best. If the project fails to perform as supposed, the potential for public backlash and damage to people's reputations is substantial. I strongly suggest that we step back, commission a substantial amount of subsurface explorations, and then review the design in light of the results. What we have now is a highly sophisticated analysis based upon arguably extremely sketchy assumptions. I cannot imagine that the land movement will instantly stop if and when this project is due implemented. More likely it will slow down over time, possibly over several years. During that time, the new structures will be exposed to damage. The consultants have rightly stressed the need for robust surveillance and maintenance. The cost of this must be weighed in any decision to go forward. The failure of earlier projects for lack of maintenance is is there to see. All that said, my basic concern is, and always has been, degradation of existing native habitat in the Preserve. There is mention in the consultant's report of working closely with PVPLC staff to minimize such degradation to the greatest extent possible. I challenge the City Council and staff to do your utmost to make it so. Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) plants are very slow growing. Large ones many take 50+ years to attain full size. Removing them is a sin in my view. Nowhere in the report is there a specific reference to replacing removed native habitat as mitigation for that removal. In earlier RPV environmental documents it was required that removed CSS be replaced on a 3:1 basis. Somehow, in the NCCP, it apparently got reduced to 2:1. Recently, apparently to try to pacify Mr. York (apparently undoable), we saw a ratio of 1.4: 1. I call upon the City to show an example of environmental leadership and good faith and commit to replacing all removed CSS and native grassland on a 3:1 basis elsewhere in the Preserve. 4 From the first public meeting on this issue, I expressed the hope and the need for any project to result in a net improvement to the Nature Preserve. Mitigation for any removal of native habitat can be an opportunity to achieve that result. Many acres of invasive plants are currently being removed via the City's laudable cooperation with the PVPLC. If the native habitat on some or all of them can be restored via mitigation for this project before invasive weeds can return, it can be a wonderful win-win result. As you know, I have total respect for the PVPLC staff. Ifthe City will work out a satisfactory damage minimization and mitigation package agreement with them, I will be the happiest person in RPV. Finally, the report clearly holds out the possibility oflining the upper canyons in a subsequent project. As you know perfectly well, that is a red line for many of our residents, myself included. If any such thing is contemplated in the future, I trust that you will recognize the need for an entirely new public outreach program. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Noel Park 6715 El Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 562-413-5147 5 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org> Monday, December 16, 2019 11:48 AM Elias Sassoon Barbara Sattler; CC; Ron Dragoo; Nasser Razepoor; Ara Mihranian; Mary Beth Woulfe; Cris Sarabia; AI; CityCierk; Noel Park Re: comments re Portuguese Bend Landslide plan image001.png Thank you. I feel it important to have the summary of our communications included for the public to read, since it is referenced in the staff report that the team consulted with the Land Conservancy. On Mon, Dec 16,2019, 11:19 AM Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Adrienne: Per you request, your attached letter as well as the consultant's responses to your letter which I sent you on Dec 12, 2019 will be included in the late correspondence for this item. Regards, 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 3 1 • From: Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 9:57AM To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Cc: Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>; Nasser Razepoor <nrazepoor@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Mary Beth Woulfe <marybeth woulfe@fws.gov>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; AI <alsattler@igc.org>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com> Subject: Re: comments re Portuguese Bend Landslide plan Hello Elias, Please include the Land Conservancys attached letter in correspondence. Thank you, Adrienne On Mon, Dec 16,2019, 7:24AM Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> wrote: Good Morning Barbara: Thanks for reaching out to us. Your email will be included as part of late correspondence for this item. Regards, 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 -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org> Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2019 12:14 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>; Nasser Razepoor <nrazepoor@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Mary Beth Woulfe <marybeth woulfe@fws.gov>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; Al <alsattler@igc.org> Subject: comments re Portuguese Bend Landslide plan Attached are our comments and concerns regarding the currently proposed Portuguese Bend Landslide remediation 2 plan. Al & Barbara Sattler ----------Forwarded message---------- From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> To: Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>, Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org> Cc: John Dodge <jdodge@geo-logic.com>, Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>, Neven Matasovic <mnatasovic@icloud.com>, "Witthoeft, Alan" <awitthoeft@geo-logic.com>, Nasser Razepoor <nrazepoor@rpvca.gov> Bee: Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:25:03 +0000 Subject: FW: Landslide Project Hi Adrienne: Attached, pis find copy of responses to your comments. Further, we are revising the engineering drawings to replace all the 11TYPE 3" concrete infill with rock rip-rap. Pis note this item is on Dec 17, 2019 City Council agenda. Pis let me know if you have any questions. Regards, 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 3 Comments from Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (November 14, 2019) 1. Hydraugers: This approach appears to have the least impact to the land and vegetation. Though the environmental review process, we urge the full construction impact area be evaluated including truck/machine access routes, staging areas, soil stockpile locations, etc. We also urge that the hydrauger locations identified along the shoreline (AS and A6) be relocated to areas near PV Drive South for less-impact to the coast and to maintain the integrity of the pristine shoreline. As previously discussed, these issues will be addressed in the CEQA component of the project. 2. Flowline Modifications: We have concerns that lining streambeds and swales with plastic geo webbing, rubble rock, and in some areas, concrete, will be immensely damaging to the landscape. While it is conceivable that plants may take root among the geo-webbing and rock material, it is likely the surrounding landscape vegetation will suffer from reduced access to the seasonal streamflow that spreads out across the alluvial fans at the bottom of the canyon areas should they be channelized. Surrounding vegetation could be exacerbated by drought stressors resulting in die-off, invasion of non-native plants, and increased fire risk. We also urge that the use of concrete be eliminated or critically reduced to preserve the natural integrity of the land. As previously discussed, these issues will be addressed in the CEQA component of the project. 3. Flow Reduction Area: It is unclear by the construction plans how the 9-acre Flow Reduction Area will be implemented and maintained. This was presented and discussed in detail in the October 7, 2019 public meeting. 4. In general, there is concern about the aesthetics of this area that will require over-excavating and capping with soil, which will likely result in the proliferation of non-native plants or otherwise presumably be void of vegetation and dry most of the year, particularly if maintenance on a regular basis is required. It can be assumed that this area may be misused by off-trail pedestrians, equestrians and mountain bikers. It would be ideal to explore the possibility of including native planting in a strategic array along the berms and bottom of the FRAin gaps void of geotextile in order to ameliorate concerns regarding a barren landscape and off-trail recreation. As previously discussed native planting can be implemented post-construction. We continue to advocate for a phased approach with monitoring and adaptive modifications to the designs and implementation of subsequent elements, with the goal to minimize impacts to surface topography, native vegetation and availability of surface water supply to support the local ecosystem. As previously discussed, project implementation will be planned and executed in a phased manner. We look forward to the environmental review phase of the project, where considerations for the scale and exact locations of recommended remediation strategies would take into account the local vegetation, recreation and trails, and natural resources in order to minimize impacts to the best extent possible. We urge a balanced approach that may reduce the magnitude and extent of the recommended mitigation strategies that are designed from a hydrologic perspective in order to preserve the coastline and natural resources of the land. As previously discussed, these issues will be addressed in the CEQA component of the project. PRESERVING LAND AND RESTORING HABITAT FOR THE EDUCATION AND ENJOYMENT OF ALL November 14, 20 19 Elias Sassoon Director, Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Subject: Comments regarding Portuguese Bend Landslide Designs Dear Mr. Sassoon, Thank you for the opportunity to meet with Public Works and Geo-Logic Associates to review the draft Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation design plans. As was explained to Conservancy staff during the meeting, we understand that at this stage Public Works is investigating the hydrologic influences of the landslide and recommended remediation strategies that are considering hydrology and topography, and that these recommendations are not being designed in tandem with the environmental review (that phase is planned after the approval of the concept designs). However, our interest is to safeguard the integrity of the native ecosystem and landscape, and therefore following are comments related to the specific design elements and general comments. Hydraugers: This approach appears to have the least impact to the land and vegetation. Though the environmental review process, we urge the full construction impact area be evaluated including truck/machine access routes, staging areas, soil stockpile locations, etc. We also urge that the hydrauger locations identified along the shoreline (AS and A6) be relocated to areas near PV Drive South for less-impact to the coast and to maintain the integrity of the pristine shoreline. Flowline Modifications: We have concerns that lining streambeds and swales with plastic geo webbing, rubble rock, and in some areas, concrete, will be immensely damaging to the landscape. While it is conceivable that plants may take root among the gee-webbing and rock material, it is likely the surrounding landscape vegetation will suffer from reduced access to the seasonal streamflow that spreads out across the alluvial fans at the bottom of the canyon areas should they be channelized. Surrounding vegetation could be exacerbated by drought stressors resulting in die-off, invasion of non- native plants, and increased fire risk. We also urge that the use of concrete be eliminated or critically reduced to preserve the natural integrity of the land. Flow Reduction Area: It is unclear by the construction plans how the 9-acre Flow Reduction Area will be implemented and maintained. In general, there is concern about the aesthetics of this area that will require over-excavating and capping with soil, which will likely result in the proliferation of non-native plants or otherwise presumably be void of vegetation and dry most of the year, particularly if maintenance on a regular basis is required. It can be assumed that this area may be misused by off-trail 916 SILVER SPUR ROAD# 207. ROLLING HILLS ESTATES. CA 90274-3826 T 310.541.7613 WWW.PVPLC.ORG pedestrians, equestrians and mountain bikers. It would be ideal to explore the possibility of including native planting in a strategic array along the berms and bottom of the FRA in gaps void of geotextile in order to ameliorate concerns regarding a barren landscape and off-trail recreation. We continue to advocate for a phased approach with monitoring and adaptive modifications to the designs and implementation of subsequent elements, with the goal to minimize impacts to surface topography, native vegetation and availability of surface water supply to support the local ecosystem. We look forward to the environmental review phase of the project, where considerations for the scale and exact locations of recommended remediation strategies would take into account the local vegetation, recreation and trails, and natural resources in order to minimize impacts to the best extent possible. We urge a balanced approach that may reduce the magnitude and extent of the recommended mitigation strategies that are designed from a hydrologic perspective in order to preserve the coastline and natural resources of the land. Sincerely, Adrienne Mohan Executive Director 916 SILVER SPUR ROAD# 207. ROLLING HILLS ESTATES. CA 90274-3826 T 310.541.7623 WWW.PVPLC.ORG From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Barbara, Ron Dragoo Thursday, December 12 , 2019 5:27 PM 'Barbara Sattler' Elias Sassoon ; Nasser Razepoor; CityCierk RE: questions re landslide remediation Thanks for reaching out to us with these questions. Responses to your questions are highlighted in yellow below. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Best regards, Ron Dragoo, PE City Engineer -----Original Message ----- From : Barbara Sattler [mailto:bsattler@igc.org] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 11:01 AM To : Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca .gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca .gov>; Nasser Razepoor <nrazepoor@rpvca.gov> Subject: questions re landslide remediation Hi Elias, Ron and Nasser- Thank you, Ron, for meeting with me on October 29 to answer some of my questions about the proposed Landslide Remediation project. I am now reviewing the new proposal and perhaps one of you can help me with a couple of additional questions: 1. There is a mention that the option of having four box culverts at Palos Verdes Drive South was rejected as being too expensive. Can you refer me to any documents that discuss the evaluation of that option more thoroughly? Reducing the pipes to one line was a decision that was made in -house without additional ana lysis from the consu ltant. The pipe system requires an area that allows silt to settle out of the runoff prior to entering into storm drain lines . To do this the runoff needs to slow considerably which is why the consultants designed the flow reduction area . Without this component the pipes wil l quickly fill with si lt and become clogged . We experienced this with the previously insta l led corrugated metal pipe system. Reduced impacts to our open space and the additiona l cost of installing the three additional storm drain lines to the ocean can be avoided by using the single storm drain line. 2. At the end of my October meeting with Ron, I asked him about slide# 10 of the Hydrologic Analysis (attached) showing Topographic Analysis-Cross Sections . The section illustrated in that slide shows a distinctive hump in the vicinity of Burma Road Trail. I asked Ron whether it might be possible to regrade that hump in the vicinity of the natural canyons in order to restore natural water flow to the canyons. We had already run past the allotted meeting time at that point, so there was not time for any extended discussion. Ron briefly replied that there was too much infrastructure in that area so that such a reconfiguration would not be feasible. Could you gentlemen please give me a more detailed description of what infrastructure exists in that area? I suspect that addressing these primary points of obstruction of the natural drainage in Portuguese Bend might be something that should be considered in trying to address the ongoing landflow. It may turn out to be overwhelmingly costly to do anything there (both monetarily and environmentally), but I would like to see the option discussed rather than simply rejected without explanation. A I ist of the infra structure includes : Southern Ca l if 1 o rn ia Edison has lines that run generally para lie I to Burma 3 Road, communication companies are attached to SCE's poles in this area, and California Water Service has a water transmission line parallel to Burma Road. The elevations on the sl ide you attached indicates that approximately 100' vertically would need to be removed at the south edge of Burma Road to accommodate flows . This cross -section follows Portuguese Canyon where a storm drain pipe runs under Burma Road. The consultant has identified this pipe to be replaced to restore hydraulic connectivity between the upper reaches of the Portuguese Canyon and the proposed storm drain system . Thank you for your help. Barbara Sattler 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Good Morning Barbara: Thanks for reaching out to us. Elias Sassoon Monday, December 16, 2019 7:23 AM Barbara Sattler; CC; Ron Dragoo; Nasser Razepoor; Ara Mihranian Mary Beth Woulfe; Adrienne Mohan; Cris Sarabia; AI; CityCierk RE: comments re Portuguese Bend Landslide plan comments for 12-17-2019.pdf Your email will be included as part of late correspondence for this item. Regards, 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 -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org> Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2019 12:14 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>; Nasser Razepoor <nrazepoor@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Mary Beth Woulfe <marybeth_woulfe@fws.gov>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; Cris Sarabia <csarabia@pvplc.org>; AI <alsattler@igc.org> Subject: comments re Portuguese Bend Landslide plan Attached are our comments and concerns regarding the currently proposed Portuguese Bend Landslide remediation plan. AI & Barbara Sattler 3 • 1 December 15, 2019 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and Staff via email re: Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Project proposal To the City Council and Staff: Thank you for the opportunity to review the design drawings and hydrologic analysis associated with the Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Project. Although there have been only a very few days to review the analysis and plan, we do have the following preliminary comments: CEQA Review Environmental Consulting Firm for CEQA In order to avoid any conflicts of interest, the environmental consulting firm selected by the city to prepare the CEQA documents should be independent and have no affiliation with the current consultants and/or project designers. Project Goals for CEQA evaluation Two additional Project Goals should be added before CEQA review-that of restoring water drainage to a natural state as much as feasible and minimizing the visible engineering structures as much as possible. Request for Alternative Plan Please defer the assignment of CEQA review for this project proposal until an additional Alternative Plan or Plans from a different consulting company can be simultaneously reviewed in the CEQA process. The Alternative Plan(s) should focus on the removal of blockages to natural drainage in the Portuguese Bend area, both at the canyon inlets and at outflow to the ocean, which is currently dammed by Palos Verdes Drive South .. Discussion We are requesting a broadened set of goals for this proposed project and an Alternative Plan to be simultaneously reviewed in the CEQA process for the reasons discussed as follows. For a project of this scope and expense it seems only prudent and reasonable to obtain a Second Opinion. Every consulting firm has its own set of skills and expertise, and its own point of view regarding recommended approaches to problem solving. In this case, while aspects of the design have been modified in response to public and city concerns, some variation of engineered swales, hydroaugers and filling of fissures have remained as the recommended actions to address the landflow. The menu of remediation options to be considered has thus always seemed to be limited. It seems to us that all of the options that have recently been under consideration are work- arounds that fail to address the existing blockages of natural water flow which are causing inappropriate flow to subsurface areas as well as pending of water. These blockages are: (1) At the inflow to the natural canyons (which we understand to be around Burma Road) (2) At what should be the outflow to the ocean, which is dammed by Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS) It concerns us that instead of restoring what was once a natural dispersion of water drainage divided between several canyons, the current proposal would instead funnel all of that water into a single concentrated flow, which because of its large volume and velocity will require a very large detention basin ("Flow Reduction Area") before being directed out into a single pipe to the outflow. We worry that should any part of that proposed system fail at any time in the future, we may have a far worse problem than we do today. There needs to be additional analysis and an Alternate Plan for CEQA evaluation that would focus on remediating the existing blockages at the canyon inflows and outflow to the ocean in order to restore a more natural water flow and drainage. It seems to us that current technology allows for sophisticated 3-dimensional mapping that was not feasible years ago. Could such mapping be used as a baseline for analysis showing the current water flow pathways, an estimate of what they might have been prior to blockages, and a recommendation of how water flow might be improved towards a more natural state at this point in time? We wonder whether some focused re-grading (in a limited area) might be an option to restore natural water flow, and whether a cut-and-fill approach might be considered to remediate inappropriate elevations and fill existing fissures. Certainly we would not wish to see this become a massive re-grading project, however we think it is worth asking if such an approach on a very limited and concentrated scale might be helpful, and perhaps even more economical than the current proposal. Determinations regarding the possibility of restoring natural drainages are likely to be complex and to require specialized expertise. Therefore, it may be better to hire an independent geological consulting firm for this analysis rather than solely rely on the CEQA process itself. Concerns regarding the currently proposed plan Filling of fissures 1. Would the filling of existing fissures with a solid material (such as the proposed fly ash/concrete or any other concrete-like filling) be, in effect, the insertion of a permanent wedge of solid material separating the land masses? Would the surrounding soil then be inclined to pull away from that wedge of fill, reopening a fissure again and requiring constant maintenance to refill in order to avoid inappropriate water penetration at those previously filled fissures? 2. Might fissures close as well as open? If so, a solid wedge would seem to prevent that. 3. Would it not be better to fill the fissures with native soil and allow native vegetation to recover across those fissures so that the root network would help to integrate, join and hold the soil masses together? 4. What is the use of filling fissures if the surface flow of the water has not yet been improved? 5. Fly ash is fine powdery material from burning coal, which was captured by filters and would otherwise have been smoke, polluting the air downwind. Its use in concrete is viewed favorably by the coal industry, as a way to get rid of its waste product. Coal is no longer burned in power plants in California, so this material would need to be transported from another state. Although we are aware that the EPA has ruled that fly ash is safe to use in building materials, we remain concerned about its use in direct contact with water and soil within a natural landscape. Although its primary components may be "inert" as claimed in the Staff Report, fly ash typically contains toxic elements which were present in the coal that was being burned. These include but are not limited to arsenic, lead, barium, selenium, mercury, boron, and thallium, according to the Electric Power Research Institute (CP-INFO Database. EPRI: August 5, 2009. Accessed at tL11J2iil!f!!!..fi.!!Jiik"!tJ!L?I1QJJJi.ti.J1.m!Ji.'!ri.!ildf!.V.!.>'Jitfl.:s!Qglz-i.Jf!t!ti!.?Ji!.f!!!JJ!.LCJ.,'5Ji<!.l0'i.QJJ3J __ 2.Q.fiQL£9...9.IlJl1flfiling_LQ1§Jd...f!::..'?DsifJ For "Fiowable Fill", 95% fly ash is the highest concentration discussed in a document "Fly Ash Facts for Highway Engineers", but this proposal mentions a concentration as high as 97%, which would seem to provide very little encapsulation of the fly ash and thus little protection against leaching of contaminants. Contamination could be leached into the ground water or soil with detrimental effects on vegetation, soil biota, and downslope water quality including ocean ecosystems. Testing should be done on any fly ash designated for use in this project before any injection or installation occurs to determine whether hazardous concentrations of toxic elements would be leached out. Aesthetics The primary function of the Nature Preserve is to provide habitat for the plants and wildlife which make up the local ecosystem. However, human appreciation and enjoyment of the natural landscape is also a big part of its value. The natural slopes and vegetation of the Preserve are highly valued by the public. One only needs to be aware of the vast number of photographs and artwork depicting these lands to realize how important that aesthetic value is to many people. It is disconcerting to visualize an overlay of a vast network of drainage infrastructure on that landscape. Just as the public values the "undergrounding" of utility lines, the public would not want to see the intrusion of drainage infrastructure as a visual blight on the Preserve. Data Gaps It would be desirable to see a 3-dimensional mapping of the land and geologic contours and the associated water flow. The consultant has pointed out that, since the movement of the landflow is ongoing, it is difficult to pinpoint critical locations of water presence and that data from borings could be "off" by as much as 100ft. (p. A12). Such a discrepancy will require additional investigations (with associated costs) prior to and during construction and could result in a trial- and-error approach that ends up with significantly greater cost, and greater impacts to habitat areas than originally anticipated. Future Maintenance Requirements The consultant states that the proposed project will not stabilize land flow, but is likely to "reduce movement rate" by some undefined amount. This caveat implies that ongoing maintenance of PVDS roadway and sewer lines through the Portuguese Bend will continue to be necessary. Therefore, it is not reasonable to assume or speculate that such costs will no longer be incurred by the city once the project is completed. In addition to the ongoing maintenance of PVDS, maintenance of the various landflow mitigation components would also be required, which must be factored into the overall costs of this project. For example, the consultant recommends increasing the frequency of monitoring of land movement to monthly rather than annually. The drainage swales themselves would require regular maintenance. It should also be noted that any disturbed areas adjacent to the swales (including access roads and staging areas) would be vulnerable to infestation with problematic invasive non-native vegetation such as mustard. Methodology to control such vegetation needs to be defined, particularly considering both the presence within the Nature Preserve and that the outflow leads directly to ocean ecosystems. It is not clear whether the access roads used for construction are intended to be left permanently for maintenance. Detention Basin ("Flow Reduction Area") The proposed detention basin is quite large, and is likely to be a dominant and discordant visual feature imposed on the landscape. What would the anticipated weight of the detention basin be at maximum capacity? Might this added weight potentially trigger any additional land movement? Outflow to ocean The current proposal calls for a single large outflow to the ocean at the location of the existing outflow pipe. The Staff Report states that "it originally was recommended that four additional 60-inch pipes under PVDS, extending to the ocean, be constructed in order to adequately convey the quantity of stormwater runoff associated with a 1 00-year rainfall event." That option was apparently rejected by the city because of unspecified costs and environmental impacts. The public deserves to see the details and analysis of those costs and environmental impacts in order to have a comprehensive understanding of the range of options available to address the landflow challenges. Conclusion Thank you for your attention to these concerns. Again, we request that an Alternative Plan which focuses on the removal of blockages and restoration of natural drainage be developed and added to the CEQA evaluation. The Goals of restoring natural drainage to the extent possible and minimizing the visibility of drainage infrastructure should also be added to the project as a baseline for the CEQA review. Please also consider the additional concerns regarding the current proposal that we have mentioned above. Sincerely, Alfred and Barbara Sattler From: Sent: To: Subject: LC Emily Colborn Sunday, December 15, 2019 2:13 PM CityCierk FW: Final Portuguese Bend Landslide mitigation design proposal Tuesday night 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: Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2019 2:08PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Final Portuguese Bend Landslide mitigation design proposal Tuesday night Mayor Cruikshank, Mayor Pro Tern Alegria and Council Members Bradley, Dyda, and Ferraro. Please consider postponing a decision on the Final Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Design Proposal to give us all more time to review these complex materials, reflect on them and the consultants' presentation, and comment after the holidays. Based on a quick review of the Staff Report and consultants' report on a small computer screen, I have a few comments: To facilitate the public's review of the materials, it would be nice to have a more layperson-friendly rendering of what all this is expected to look like, because the storm drain retention pond is going to be huge and the engineered swales will be significant as well. I noticed on numbered page 2 of the consultants' report (A-6) that the canyon lining is mentioned, whereas we have been told for months that would not be part of the proposal. It says: The canyon liner would be used to reduce storm water infiltration and percolation to groundwater along Portuguese, Paint Brush, and Ishibashi Canyons. Based on my quick look (with less than satisfactory magnification) at the graphics included, the consultants' report doesn't seem to indicate these canyons would be lined as part of the current proposal, but as long as that is included in the proposal in this vague way, I remain concerned and the general public will be as well. The consultants seem to have gotten the message that disturbance of coastal sage scrub and grassland will have restrictions/consequences, but their report indicates that their understanding is construction in other areas (presumably areas dominated by mustard, for example) is unrestricted. I read this to mean that we can anticipate areas dominated by non-native habitat will be destroyed with no obligation to restore. That should be unacceptable. Public comment from the beginning asked for data gaps to be filled before designing a plan, to be sure the plan was based on the best data we could get, yet the report says there continue to be significant data gaps. If we are going to spend millions of dollars, lets be as informed about what we are doing as we can be and spend the money to fill those data gaps. 1 3 • In the same vein, we ought to be thoroughly aware of the pros and cons of alternatives before going forward with CEQA on this proposal. For example, the consultants' report indicates that "originally" (not sure who/when) four additional 60" culverts were recommended for under PV Drive South. Instead of that, the consultants came up with the large retention pond to slow the land flow before it enters the single existing culvert lest the culvert be overwhelmed by the flow. It would be good to know approximate costs, risks, environmental impacts, and visual blight anticipated with that "original" recommendation, so we can compare it to the currently proposed solution. Would another consultant come up with an entirely different solution? What about a solution that directly addresses the major concern with land movement--the potential for disruption of sewage and water lines along PV Drive South? What about a solution that captures the rainwater that would otherwise drain to the Pacific Ocean, perhaps as an alternative to a desal plant? Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments. Eva Cicaria 2 202019 CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS ORGANIZATION DELEGATE/ALTERNATE** Calif. Joint Powers Ins. Authority (CJPIA) Cruikshank / DuhovicFerraro Chambers of Commerce Entire Council City Selection Committee (LA Co. Board of Supervisors) Duhovic Cruikshank / AlegriaFerraro Contract Cities FerraroCruikshank / BrooksDyda *L. A. County West Vector Control District Sala, Elizabeth (Term ends: 12/31/20) League of Calif. Cities L.A. County Division Cruikshank & Alegria League of Calif. Cities Annual Conf. Voting Delegates Alegria / Cruikshank League-Coastal Cities Subcommittee Alegria / Dyda *Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority Dyda & BradleyDuhovic & Cruikshank & Alegria Peninsula Regional Law Enforcement Brooks & Alegria & Bradley *Sanitation Districts (Dist. No. 5 & So. Bay San. District)Duhovic Cruikshank / Brooks (1st)/Dyda(2nd) Bradley Santa Monica Bay Watershed Advisory Council Alegria / Dyda *South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG)Cruikshank / Alegria West Basin Water Association Cruikshank Bradley / BrooksFerraro AD HOC COMMITTEES DELEGATES Southside Public Safety Facility Task Force Subcommittee Duhovic / AlegriaNot active/eliminate Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Subcommittee Brooks & Alegria & Ferraro Federal Legislative Advocacy Subcommittee Brooks & Cruikshank & Alegria Requests for Proposals (RFP) & Contracts Subcommittee Dyda & CruikshankBradley Public Records Act Request Subpoena Subcommittee Duhovic & AlegriaNot active/eliminate Charter City Subcommittee Dyda & Cruikshank STANDING COMMITTEES DELEGATES Audit Subcommittee Cruikshank Alegria & DuhovicBradley Solid Waste Subcommittee Alegria Ferraro & CruikshankBradley Portuguese Bend Landflow Committee Dyda & Cruikshank Peninsula Emergency Preparedness Committee Brooks & Alegria & Bradley LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS STAFF/COUNCIL LIAISON LAX Community Noise Roundtable Staff (Robert Nemeth) Palos Verdes Peninsula School District BrooksFerraro/Alegria Civic Center Advisory Committee Brooks Cruikshank & DuhovicAlegria Emergency Preparedness Committee Brooks Bradley Finance Advisory Committee Alegria Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee Cruikshank Planning Commission Dyda Traffic Safety Committee Cruikshank/Duhovic Ferraro B-1 5 * Form 700 Required **/ = delegate and alternate **& = 2 person participation W:\01 City Clerk\City Council\2019\2019 City Council Assignments.docx B-2 2020 CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS ORGANIZATION DELEGATE/ALTERNATE** Calif. Joint Powers Ins. Authority (CJPIA) Cruikshank / Ferraro Chambers of Commerce Entire Council City Selection Committee (LA Co. Board of Supervisors) Cruikshank / Ferraro Contract Cities Ferraro / Dyda *L. A. County West Vector Control District Sala, Elizabeth (Term ends: 12/31/20) League of Calif. Cities L.A. County Division Cruikshank & Alegria League of Calif. Cities Annual Conf. Voting Delegates Alegria / Cruikshank League-Coastal Cities Subcommittee Alegria / Dyda *Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority Dyda & Bradley Peninsula Regional Law Enforcement Alegria & Bradley *Sanitation Districts (Dist. No. 5 & So. Bay San. District) Cruikshank / Bradley Santa Monica Bay Watershed Advisory Council Alegria / Dyda *South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) Cruikshank / Alegria West Basin Water Association Bradley / Ferraro AD HOC COMMITTEES DELEGATES Southside Public Safety Facility Task Force Subcommittee Not active/eliminate Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Subcommittee Alegria & Ferraro Legislative Advocacy Subcommittee Cruikshank & Alegria Requests for Proposals (RFP) & Contracts Subcommittee Dyda & Bradley Public Records Act Request Subpoena Subcommittee Not active/eliminate Charter City Subcommittee Dyda & Cruikshank STANDING COMMITTEES DELEGATES Audit Subcommittee Alegria & Bradley Solid Waste Subcommittee Ferraro & Bradley Portuguese Bend Landflow Committee Dyda & Cruikshank Peninsula Emergency Preparedness Committee Alegria & Bradley LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS STAFF/COUNCIL LIAISON LAX Community Noise Roundtable Staff (Robert Nemeth) Palos Verdes Peninsula School District Ferraro/Alegria Civic Center Advisory Committee Cruikshank & Alegria Emergency Preparedness Committee Bradley Finance Advisory Committee Alegria Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee Cruikshank Planning Commission Dyda Traffic Safety Committee Cruikshank/Ferraro C-1 * Form 700 Required **/ = delegate and alternate **& = 2 person participation C-2